Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EMU WINE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

NORTH WEST WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

BRITISH LINEN BANK ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the British Linen Bank; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 29th June and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Royal Ulster Constabulary

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the recruitment, equipment and training of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I am satisfied that recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary is proceeding satisfactorily and that arrangements for the provision of equipment and the training of officers by the Police Authority and the Chief Constable respectively meet the needs of the force.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister particularly look at the need for facilities for training on the new weapons? Will he also do all he can to speed up the supply of the promised new vehicles and examine the problem caused by the shortage of accommodation for the regional crime squads?

Mr. Dunn: The Chief Constable has a working party which discusses these matters and advises him on them. They are continually reviewed. The Chief Constable is aware of the adjustments required to keep pace with the new equipment.

Mr. Neave: Will the Minister convey to the RUC our congratulations on its handling of the recent strike organised by the United Ulster Unionist Action Council? How many people have been charged with intimidation and will appear before the courts under the Protection of Property and Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1969? Is the Minister aware that the firm stand by the Secretary of State that picketing with intimidation was against the law greatly sustained the police in their difficulty on that occasion?

Mr. Dunn: My right hon. and hon. Friends have conveyed to the members of the RUC, through the Chief Constable, our congratulations on the performance which they managed to achieve during a most difficult and challenging time. We applaud their courage


in many of the things they did. From memory, I think that about 40 people have been charged with intimidation under the Protection of Property and Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1969. About 110 charges have still to be processed and have to go before the Director of Public Prosecutions before further action can be taken.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can the Minister say whether the RUC's obvious impartiality during the strike has helped it towards achieving peace in the "green" areas? Has it increased recruits to the force from those areas?

Mr. Dunn: The impartiality of the RUC is recognised. It was projected in the way that it succeeded. It is difficult to know to which "green" areas the hon. Member refers. In the main, the people recognise what is being done. More and more they are prepared to accept that the RUC is serving the Province as a whole.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: What progress has been made with the recruitment of Roman Catholics to the force?

Mr. Dunn: The recruitment of Roman Catholics is still not as good as we could wish. There are difficulties, but we hope that following the last confrontation in the Province Roman Catholics will recognise that there is a need for their services.

Mr. Fitt: Has there been any lowering of the standards required for recruitment to the RUC? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of suspicion attached to the standards required for recruitment to the RUC Reserve? Will he undertake, even though there appears to be a shortage of personnel in the RUC and the RUC Reserve, that the same calibre of candidate will be sought and that there will be no lowering of standards?

Mr. Dunn: All I can say is that to the best of my knowledge there has been no lowering of standards. As far as I am aware—I can only take the figures—about 1,000 people have made applications and of those only 258 have been accepted. That is an indicator that follows the pattern of what has gone previously. That is the only reply that I can give at present

Political Talks

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what talks he has had with the political parties in Northern Ireland during the Whitsun Adjournment to lead to a political settlement in the Province.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about his recent discussions with party political leaders in the Province.

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the talks he has had with parties in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about his talks with political leaders.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): During the week beginning 23rd May I met separately representatives of the Official Unionist Party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, the Alliance Party and the Democratic Unionist Party to discuss security and constitutional matters. Following these meetings, on 8th June I announced a package of measures which offered an intensification of the security effort against the terrorists within existing policy. This has since been generally welcomed.
In discussions with the parties on constitutional issues, I explained that a fully devolved legislative government remained the goal of the Government, as it is of the main political parties, but I concluded that the parties were not yet ready to come to an agreement on the form this should take. Some parties did, however, show an interest in continuing the discussion by exploring the desirability of some interim form of administration short of full devolution, and this is being done.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the Secretary of State understand that there are many outside the ranks of his own party who would want respectfully to commend him very warmly for the firmness he showed in standing up to the attempted disruption of the Province? Does not the repudiation of the leadership of the


hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) give the right hon. Gentleman a real opportunity for political initiative? Will he take the House a little more into his confidence and perhaps speculate on the areas in which, as he said in his answer, interim progress might be made rather than attempting a long-term solution at this stage?

Mr. Mason: I am much obliged for what the hon. Gentleman said initially, but, of course, any firm resolution by any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would have been of no avail if the people themselves had not been prepared to contest the intimidation that took place and on occasions to march to work in spite of the fact that there was no transport to take them there.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I told all the political parties I met that I was prepared to consider an interim arrangement which would involve the devolution of real power and responsibility provided that it commanded widespread support from both parts of the community.
Concerning the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), he has not shown an interest particularly on that score. I think that the Democratic Unionist Party and the hon. Member for Antrim, North were prepared as a first step, but probably no more, to look at the democratisation of the area boards.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's desire to act cautiously, but does he agree that a top level of local government would at least give the Province comparability with the rest of the United Kingdom in the way in which administrative local government is carried out? May I suggest that this is a natural first step which would not really carry him into dangerous and difficult ground?

Mr. Mason: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to understand the political difficulties in Northern Ireland, as distinct from observing them from this House. There are eight major parties in Northern Ireland. Four of them survived the last election, and not one of them, at this stage, is prepared to look at seriously and quickly a form of county council or an upper tier of local government. One party would believe that it

would be a divergence from the main goal. Another party would fear that it was giving one of the parties in Northern Ireland unnecessary responsibility too quickly and recognises that participation might come about without it getting its proper bargaining rights. That sort of area is the area of discussion now between the parties concerned. I am hopeful that there will be a solution, but it will take a little more than hon. Members realise.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the asperity of the Secretary of State towards my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), may I ask whether he is aware that my hon. Friend has worked in Northern Ireland for a number of years and has a good deal of knowledge of the affairs of the Province? As Northern Ireland is a Province and not a colony of the United Kingdom, when Ministers have important statements to make, whether on security or anything else, will they ensure that Parliament is the first to hear, and not the Press?

Mr. Mason: I think that that really depends upon whether the statement that is being made in the Province is of a major change of policy. If that be so, of course the House ought to be properly informed and a statement made. But that must be a matter of judgment for the Secretary of State and his Ministers in the Province. I know to which matter the hon. Gentleman refers, and on this occasion I did not think that it necessitated a major statement in the House.
I also ought to let the hon. Gentleman know that there is no personal difference between his hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and myself. However, it is as well to remind the House that there is quite a large number of political parties in Northern Ireland, which take very strong and different points of view, especially on political movement to devolved executive government with its own legislature. That is where we would like to go. It is the objective of the Government, and I should like to help them along that path.

Mr. McNamara: At the risk of running foul of my right hon. Friend's asperity, may I add my congratulations to him and to his colleagues for their work during the recent strike? My right hon. Friend talked about political initiatives. He will have observed the comment of the new


Prime Minister of the Republic. When does he hope to start to meet his opposite numbers? Have any tentative dates been fixed yet even though there is no actual formation of a Ministry?

Mr. Mason: Once again, I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks at the outset of his question. At this stage, I have no plans to meet either Mr. Lynch or whomever he appoints as Ministers. It is a little too early to say. He is not officially appointed Taoiseach until 5th July. We do not know who will be appointed as Ministers, especially for foreign affairs. Therefore, it is a little too early to say. As I have stated previously, I hope that the close co-operation and the good working relationships that were established with the former Government will continue, and I do not see any reason why they should not continue.

Mr. Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman spoke disparagingly of Ulster's political problems, but does he not recognise that under the present inept Government and under direct rule Northern Ireland suffers from an alarming and heartbreaking increase in unemployment, rocketing prices, lower wages, a lower standard of living, and a stultifying bureaucracy? Is it not about time to hand over Ulster affairs to an Ulster Government and an Ulster Parliament on the British system?

Mr. Mason: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. There is now an unemployment rate of 11·2 per cent. in Northern Ireland, which is nearly twice the average for Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman will recognise, however—without being too carping a critic—that Her Majesty's Government have been taking special measures to try to help Northern Ireland in its economic difficulties. My regional friends might disagree with me, but we have managed to save the regional employment premium for the whole of Northern Ireland. It has been phased out completely in Great Britain. That has saved 10,000 jobs in Northern Ireland. When we were called upon to make a contribution to the public expenditure cuts of £1,000 million, Northern Ireland gave a nominal £5 million. It should also be recognised that the major effort by Her Majesty's Government to get the two LPGs for Harland and Wolff has made the biggest practical and psychological breakthrough for Northern Ireland and has given it the first chance in the world

of building the most technologically advanced ships on the stocks today.

Mr. John Ellis: Following the last outburst by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), does my right hon. Friend agree that some of us are of the view that we are waiting for the hon. Gentleman to put forward solutions that we may then disagree with? We are looking to members of political parties in Ulster to come forward with some ideas whereby rapprochement can be achieved in seeking to find a path forward. My right hon. Friend must not go further than he has done, otherwise he will fall into the trap that the hon. Member for Down, North wants him to fall into.

Mr. Mason: Yes, I think that there is great truth in what my hon. Friend says. There are some Opposition Members who want vigorously to discuss matters but never come to a solution. It must also be remembered that we are paying a major subvention in order to help the economic difficulties of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: It was a matter of surprise that the right hon. Gentleman did not choose to make his major and welcome statement about the strengthening of security and the increase of penalties for terrorist crimes to this House and not first to the Press. The right hon. Gentleman spoke to the Press on 8th June. Could not the statement have waited until we came back here?

Mr. Mason: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that I treated the House with discourtesy. We have been working for some time on the intensification of security within present policy, and there was no change in policy. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have been urging me for months to intensify security, and therefore I made my statement at the earliest possible moment without discourtesy to the House.

Disabled Persons (Telephone Service)

Mr. Bradford: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider financial assistance for the introduction of a disabled persons' telephone bureau which would be structured on similar lines to that which is currently operating in Manchester.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): I understand that the telephone information service for the disabled in Manchester is operated by a small number of volunteers who are themselves disabled and who provide the service from their own homes. So far there has been no demand for a similar scheme in Northern Ireland, but if any disabled persons or organisations representing them wish to have such a scheme introduced their views will be considered sympathetically.

Mr. Bradford: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for his reply. Will he accept that a number of people involved in the voluntary social services are anxious to introduce such a scheme, and that the introduction of this scheme would cost hundreds rather than thousands of pounds? Will he be prepared to meet a number of interested people in order to discuss this matter further in the immediate future?

Mr. Carter: My noble Friend the Minister of State is responsible for this matter, and in speaking for him I know that he would be only too pleased to meet people who might come forward with any scheme. It does not involve a great deal of money and we are quite prepared to talk about it.

Police Authority (Building Projects)

Mr. McCusker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much the Northern Ireland Police Authority has budgeted for in the year 1977–78 on capital building rojects.

Mr. Dunn: Provision of £3,820,000 has been made in Police Authority estimates for capital building projects in the year 1977–78.

Mr. McCusker: Bearing in mind that the Minister reneged on his promise to the people of Lurgan to rebuild their police station, will he look into the budget and try to find a few pounds in order to clear and secure the site which we hope will eventually be used to rebuild the station, so that I can convince those people that he is genuine and honest in his assurance that they will have that station soon?

Mr. Dunn: I do not share the hon. Member's strictures upon me. He would not expect me to do so. Indeed, I tried

to explain to him during an Adjournment debate exactly why this decision was made. I thought he had accepted it then. I shall, however, bring his comments to the notice of those who are concerned.

Terrorist Murders (Penalty)

Mr. Win. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now take steps to restore the death penalty for murders committed by terrorists in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mason: No, Sir.

Mr. Ross: Is not the Secretary of State aware that when members of the security forces are captured by the IRA in Northern Ireland they cannot look forward to a prison cell but only to the most cruel torture and eventual death? Will he also accept that people in Northern Ireland believe that terrorism will not be finally defeated until the sentences of the "godfathers" of terrorism are matched by society?

Mr. Mason: I am sure that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland would not want capital punishment to be brought back for conviction on a major charge. They are fully aware that such a course would bring back the full depth of sectarian hatred in Northern Ireland. The first man to hang on a rope, whether Protestant or Catholic, would set off once again the sectarian hatred which we are managing now to sink into the past. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will help to explain to his constituents that capital punishment has gone. That was decided by the House and, as far as we are concerned, it will not return.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that after all that has happened in the last few years in Northern Ireland, and even branching out further on occasions, it is very sad that he should have to answer such a sectarian question as that put by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross)?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that hanging or shooting anyone at this stage by the process of judicial murder would be bound to result in inflaming the difficult situation, so that the whole problem would hang round our necks even more than it does at the moment?

Mr. Mason: Hanging has been abolished in Northern Ireland since 1973. I am firmly convinced that if we brought it back the first man to be hanged would be declared a martyr. If he were a member of the Provisional IRA, it would give rise to a great deal of IRA propaganda and help its cause immensely.

Mr. Wells: Is the Secretary of State aware of the universal anxiety of prison officers and their families in all parts of the United Kingdom about their own safety? Will he consider the position of prison officers?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman would appear to want me to go back on my statement step by step, through prison officers or policemen, on the way to the restoration of capital punishment. I am not prepared to do that. In the Irish Republic the Government still have that right, but I believe that there have been no hangings, even in the Republic, since 1954.

Mr. Craig: Did I understand the Secretary of State to say that the result of the judicial process can be sectarian?

Mr. Mason: The result of the judicial process as at present carried out in Northern Ireland is to treat all the terrorists as criminals, to charge them and, when they are convicted, put them in gaol, and for none of them to be a martyr and for none to be treated as a political prisoner who can get an amnesty.

Housing Action Areas

Mr. Fitt: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many housing action areas have been declared in Belfast; and what is the future programme for housing action areas in the city.

Mr. Carter: Of some 60 potential housing action areas in Belfast, three have already been declared by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive with the consent of the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland). A further 24 areas have been short-listed for declaration over the next two years. The Housing Executive will be responsible for most action areas, but there will also be significant housing association involvement.

Mr. Fitt: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what specific features are

required to be presented before an area can be declared a housing action area? Is he satisfied that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is aware of the urgency of the problem and that it has the resources to use in those areas?
In looking at this matter, will my hon. Friend give an assurance to the House and assure himself that in an area in Belfast where there are perfectly good houses in existence which have recently been renovated, such as those in Hamill Street, they will not be demolished to make way for a roadway?

Mr. Carter: We are currently going through a public inquiry on the subject of roadways, and it would not be right for me to make any comment on the last point. As to the awareness of the Housing Executive of the problems of housing in Belfast, my hon. Friend must know that the Housing Executive, the Department and the Administration are more aware than anyone. My hon. Friend might be aware that, in order to heighten the public awareness of these problems, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came with me to the worst areas of Belfast earlier this week.
I assure my hon. Friend that we shall leave no stone unturned—[Interruption.] That was perhaps an inappropriate remark. One of the unfortunate things about housing in Belfast is that so much of it is now one stone piled upon another. But we shall do all we possibly can not only to preserve decent housing but also to replace the deplorable stock of bad housing which continues to exist in Belfast.

Detonators

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the marking of detonators for use in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland began; and when the security forces first recovered a detonator so marked.

Mr. Dunn: Marking began during the latter part of 1971, and the first marked detonators were recovered shortly afterwards.

Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Is he satisfied, however, that the present requirements for marking detonators with the country


of their intended use are sufficient for their control, bearing in mind that the key to an explosion is a detonator?

Mr. Dunn: I am satisfied, and the best advice that has been given to me is that most of the detonators still in circulation are those that were acquired long before 1971. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, their life is very long-lasting.

Mr. McCusker: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that I travelled home from London to Belfast yesterday with a Member of the other place who had on his person two detonators, and this despite the fact that he had gone through the security check at London Airport? Does not that show how easy it is to transport these vital pieces of equipment to the terrorist, and that the Minister should be taking all measures possible to stop this traffic?

Mr. Dunn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me the name of the person who acted so illegally. If we can deal with that matter, we can perhaps get the others who may be following that bad example. I would add that although I am pleased he came from Belfast I am not pleased at his previous remarks.

Mr. Freud: Does not the Minister agree that it is much more important to guard the detonators from the place of manufacture to the place where they are intended to be used rather than marking them? What is happening at the moment is that they get stolen and are illicitly used.

Mr. Dunn: There are a thousand and one ways in which detonators are obtained. It is not always in transit. They are sometimes taken from storage and sometimes from the place of manufacture. To guard them would be a costly exercise. The way that they are being dealt with is, I believe, the best way of all that has been suggested.

Mr. Goodhart: As the security forces are finding many unmarked detonators, will the Government reconsider their rather neutral attitude to the Detonator Bill now being guided through another place by Lord Brookeborough, which would markedly intensify restrictions on marking on this side of the Irish Sea?

Mr. Dunn: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said and I shall bring it to the attention of all concerned.

Ships' Dues (Carlingford Lough)

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to be able to report progress in resolving the dispute over ships' dues at Carlingford Lough.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): The Carlingford Lough Commissioners were asked in November last year to submit a fresh appreciation of their claim against Greenore Ferry Services and the action which might be open to them to pursue through the courts. This has not yet been received but I understand that the Commissioners hope to have the legal advice within a matter of weeks.

Mr. Powell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the legal approach does not produce results within a reasonable period, this is a matter on which a solution ought to be sought at a somewhat higher level between the two countries concerned for the evident benefit of both?

Mr. Concannon: I have not ruled out the approach that the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but I think I should wait until I see the Commissioners before I make a decision.

Judgment Enforcement Procedures

Mr. Craig: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the answer given on 19th May 1976, whether the committee of his officials reviewing the judgment enforcement procedures embodied in the Judgment (Enforcement) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and the Payments of Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) has completed its work; and whether the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland has been asked to consider the need for changes having regard to the dissatisfaction among the legal profession over the existing procedures.

Mr. Carter: Yes. The Committee has completed its work and interested parties, including the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, have been consulted.

Mr. Craig: May I take it from that that a working committee of the Supreme


Court will be established? If that is so, I hope that there will be adequate representation from the solicitors' profession.

Mr. Carter: I cannot give a positive response on the right hon. Gentleman's first point about a working party. We shall consult everyone involved. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that an Order in Council will be brought forward after all the discussions have taken place sometime later this year.

Employment

Mr. John Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are currently employed in Northern Ireland; and how this compares with 10, 15 and 20 years ago.

Mr. Ogden: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the most recent unemployment figures in Northern Ireland, giving male unemployment figures for townships with at least 15,000 population.

Mr. Concannon: The results of the census of employment taken in June of each year show that, in 1976, 491,600 persons were employed in Northern Ireland, an increase of 25,800 over the number employed 10 years ago and an increase of 51,000 over the number employed 15 years ago. Strictly comparable figures are not available prior to 1959, but a crude comparison with 1956 indicates an increase of 45,100.
As the answer to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is in the form of a tabular statement, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Mr. Ellis: Can my hon. Friend say what is being done about youth unemployment? Is it true that the position is likely to be alleviated once we get over the birth rate bulge and that the figures will then follow the birth rate in this country?

Mr. Concannon: The bulge in the birth rate in the rest of the United Kingdom took place in 1960 and is now showing itself in the number of school leavers. The bulge in Northern Ireland has always been a bulge in Northern Ireland. The birth figures there per thousand population are well above those of the rest of

the United Kingdom and create an unemployment situation in which we have to find one-third more jobs for school leavers than we have to find elsewhere.
I would tell my hon. Friend that various schemes for countering unemployment among young people are going on with great speed. We have 10 times the amount of training processes in Northern Ireland that we have in the rest of the United Kingdom. At present, the number of places for the young is five short of 4,000.

Mr. Bradford: Is the Minister satisfied with the contribution of the Northern Ireland Development Agency? Can he give some instances of employment created by the Agency?

Mr. Concannon: I shall never be satisfied with the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland until it has come down to a level that equates with the rest of the United Kingdom. NIDA has done, and is doing, a practical job, not only in creating jobs in Northern Ireland but in saving a lot of jobs. I give as one instance a NIDA factory creating 300 jobs in an area of high unemployment in Belfast. That is a great contribution.

Mr. Freud: When the Minister realises his ambition of reducing the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland to that in the rest of the country, will he bear in mind the number of people employed specifically in security in the Province?

Mr. Concannon: Yes. Unfortunately, well over 30,000 people are employed in security in the Province. I should like to see unemployment figures without that increase.

Following is the statement:

The most recent source of information is the unemployment statistics for 9th June 1977. At that date the number of males registered as unemployed at employment services offices in townships with a population of over 15,000 was as follows:


Bangor
…
…
695


Belfast
…
…
14,193


Carrickfergus
…
…
553


Larne
…
…
533


Lisburn
…
…
936


Newtownards
…
…
713


Ballymena
…
…
1,033


Coleraine
…
…
1,234


Lurgan
…
…
1,180


Portadown
…
…
739


Londonderry
…
…
3,909

House Building Standards

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce legislation to ensure that those house builders who fail to build to a reasonable standard must make good the defects which develop in a building within a certain period from the date of construction.

Mr. Carter: No, Sir. I am satisfied that effective administration of the existing legislation will protect house buyers against builders who fail to build houses to the required standard.

Mr. Kilfedder: It will be no surprise that I am disappointed with that reply. Surely the purchase of a home represents a considerable financial burden, particularly when taken on by young people. They therefore ought to be protected from inferior materials and from bad workmanship by some scandalous house builders, who, when asked to remedy defects, refuse to do so. Will the Minister look at this matter again?

Mr. Carter: The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would introduce legislation. Although I said that I shall not do that, that does not mean that I or my Department are not concerned about building standards. We have been in correspondence about a particular problem and I take the matter extremely seriously. Administrative machinery is available in order to protect house buyers, and I am very concerned that we should use it to the utmost. If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member from Northern Ireland discovers cases where builders are not building to adequate standards, we shall use all the machinery and powers that we have to ensure that the situation is remedied.

Mr. Mellish: In the rest of the United Kingdom this matter is dealt with by the National House Builders Registration Council. That is a voluntary body which has done a magnificent job on this side of the water, where no house without a certificate would be approved by a building society. Why does not Northern Ireland take a lesson from us and, apart from living with each other irrespective of religion, encourage builders to build houses properly and get a certificate for them?

Mr. Carter: The NHBRC has now become the NHBC. We have a parallel organisation in Northern Ireland. I have had recent discussions with it and have made known that I want to see a more rigorous interpretation of the powers devolved to that organisation to protect the consumer. We must remember that we are concerned not only with the building industry but with the consumer, the person who buys the house.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that excellent work is being done by the Northern Ireland National House Building Council, as the Minister of State well knows and as I can personally testify? Will he recommend to house purchasers to make sure that they buy only from registered house builders who get the protection of the scheme?

Mr. Carter: That is quite true. I am aware of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's association with the NHBRC. I must stress that there is room for improvement in Northern Ireland. I am anxious, as I am sure is the NHBC, to see an improvement in the surveillance of building standards.

Education (Reorganisation)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made towards an integrated education system in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Carter: My noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Melchett, will be speaking on this subject in another place later today. I would not wish to anticipate his remarks.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a great step forward in Northern Ireland if the education system were integrated? How soon does he expect to see progress made?

Mr. Carter: There are differing views in Northern Ireland about this whole issue. It is an issue on which both sections in the community have different views. My noble Friend has instigated discussions between all the elements involved. Irrespective of what we are trying to do in secondary education, we shall continue to consider ways and methods of extending the principle of integrated education, which to some extent already exists.

Mr. Grylls: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the Government's view on integrated education, and especially their response to the Bill that is to be introduced in another place this afternoon by Lord Dunleath? Will he tell the House why an important statement on secondary education was made not in the House of Commons but outside? Why did that happen?

Mr. Carter: It happened because in the judgment of my noble Friend it was right that he should make that statement in the House of Lords. I am aware that some people have said that the statement should have been made in this House. The plain fact is that we have not heard such criticism from Northern Ireland Members or from anyone in Northern Ireland. My noble Friend, who is responsible for education, thought that the right place to make it was in the House of Lords.

Mr. Fernyhough: As I presume my hon. Friend knows what his noble Friend will be saying in the House of Lords, what inhibits him from telling Members of this place what his noble Friend will be telling those in the House of Lords?

Mr. Carter: The subject is the responsibility of my noble Friend. Although I could tell my right hon. Friend in general what my noble Friend will be saying in another place, I could not be as specific as perhaps he might want me to be.

Mr. Neave: Surely the point is that the hon. Gentleman's noble Friend Lord Melchett made the statement to the Press last week in full. Why did he not wait to make it in Parliament?

Mr. Carter: That was on an entirely different subject, the 11-plus. My noble Friend will be making a general statement on education policy this afternoon.

Sir Nigel Fisher: Do the Cowan Report proposals mean two sets of comprehensive schools, one for Protestants and one for Catholics? If so, that is expensive as well as divisive. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extraordinary that shared schools, the only constructive education suggestion in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, are barely mentioned in the Cowan Report, although incidentally, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the subject of Lord

Dunleath's Bill that is to be introduced in another place this afternoon, which I hope very much the Government will not oppose?

Mr. Carter: I cannot anticipate what my noble Friend will be saying in another place. The hon. Gentleman's views on integrated education are well known, but he must know that in Northern Ireland the subject is a matter of deep controversy. One side has one view and the other side has a completely different view. The Government have an impartial role. If we see signs in the community that there is a pressing requirement for greater speed towards integration, we shall encourage it.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman will not act in matters that are controversial? Surely the present Home Secretary promised a conference on integrated education over a year ago. The Government are dragging their feet on this issue as they are on divorce and family law reform, which is urgently needed in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Carter: I do not think that that is a fair accusation. My noble Friend and his predecessors did all they could to pursue integrated education and to discover the precise state of affairs. As for saying that we have burked the issue because it is controversial, if the hon. Gentleman considers other aspects of education he will remember, for example, that we have announced the abolition of the 11-plus. That is a clear indication that in education we are prepared to grasp the nettle even though it may be controversial.

QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER (GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LTD.)

Mr. Speaker: I introduce a brief word of caution before we turn to the Prime Minister's Questions. I want the House to know how I propose to exercise my discretion in respect of the sub judice rule if there are questions about Grunwick. Questions which in general terms include the conduct of the police and the crowds will be allowed. However, in exercising my discretion in respect of the sub judice rule I shall disallow any


reference to arrests where charges are pending or cases due to be heard. I think that this holds the balance between the rights of the House and avoiding creating prejudice about cases before the courts.

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY (DIRECT ELECTIONS)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland concerning direct elections to a European Assembly.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): None recently.

Mr. Marten: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly have a word with the Irish Prime Minister about the whole principle of the inflated salaries of about £25,000 and allowances of about £25,000 which it is proposed to pay to the Members of the European Assembly, if any? Does he realise that it would cause great umbrage among the British people if they received that amount? Could the surplus over and above the salary of British Members of Parliament be collected from them, paid into the Consolidated Fund and redistributed to us?

The Prime Minister: I have seen references in the Press to the proposed salaries but I do not know whether they are right. If they are right, I regard them together with the allowances as grossly inflated beyond the responsibilities of the work to be done. I shall take note of the hon. Gentleman's interesting and ingenious suggestion.

Mr. Spearing: When the Prime Minister next meets the Prime Minister of Eire, will he draw his attention to the fact that we are now paying a levy of about £50 a ton on imports of wheat from Canada? Will he ask him whether he supports that levy in view of the fact that the forthcoming Euro-elections are to be for direct rule, which will determine such levies as Britain might pay? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Leader of the Opposition would be wiser to allow her party a completely free vote, which my right hon. Friend has had the wisdom to give to those on the Government Benches?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland

will be interested to hear about our internal domestic arrangements. As for matters of legislation here, I have the feeling that he and I will be discussing rather different issues when we meet. He has already indicated to me—at least, he has already intimated publicly—that he will be seeking a meeting. As for the suggestion of my hon. Friend, it is not a bad idea, is it?

Mr. Dykes: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the ease, skill and rapidity with which the French have processed ratification of and legislation for European direct elections, despite a reputation for a high degree of nationalism? With the introduction of the Bill on Friday, does the right hon. Gentleman hope to emulate the French example?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I shall be discussing the French example with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, nor many other interesting matters which arise out of the European Community. I do not really like the use of the word "process" in respect of legislation in this House, especially after what we went through yesterday.

Mr. Kilfedder: Whether or not the Prime Minister of Eire supports direct elections to the Common Market, will the right hon. Gentleman seek to persuade him to sign the European convention on extradition?

The Prime Minister: It has always been our view that it would be a good thing for States to sign the convention, and that remains our policy. Although I express that view, I do not think it would be a good thing to begin by impressing that point on a newly-arrived Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 23rd June.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall be greeting Her Majesty the Queen on her arrival at Barry Docks.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Prime Minister find time to visit the Grunwick picket line to get a fairer assessment of the situation than the Tory Leader, who sends her lackeys and message boys to support a ruthless employer, or the other member of the Shadow Cabinet, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who does not have the guts to withdraw his unsubstantiated allegations about the Secretary of State for Employment using unfair, very foul and illegal methods to coerce people into joining trade unions?

The Prime Minister: I shall not visit the picket line at Grunwick. I understand, and I am very glad to hear, that the General Secretary of APEX has now decided—I think that I made the suggestion to him first—that he should identify pickets by arm bands or in some other way so that those who latch on to this in order to turn an industrial dispute into a political battle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—that applies to the National Association for Freedom as well as to the International Socialists—can be kept clear of this industrial dispute. [An HON. MEMBER: "Identify the police."] I hope—I say this because I think that this situation is getting extremely serious —that legitimate pickets, properly identified, can be allowed to operate. Those who wish to demonstrate in support of the workers who have been dismissed at this factory should be separately organised into a demonstration and clearly distinguished from the pickets. That would make the job of the police very much easier in trying to sort out this dispute.
As regards the interjection about identifying the police, every police officer carries a number as a means of identification. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not plainclothes men."] If there are complaints about their behaviour, they can be properly investigated through the new machinery which has recently been set up. That is the way to handle it.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Prime Minister, arising out of the answer he has just given, whether he is really asking people not to join the picket lines —he recognises that numbers themselves can be intimidating and can obstruct— and that he wishes to give his full

support to the police in the way in which they are carrying out their dangerous duties?

Mr. Flannery: They are hooligans: we saw them.

Mrs. Thatcher: What action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take to protect the right of the law-abiding citizen to go peacefully to work?

The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Lady issued a statement to the Press last night, although it was totally unnecessary to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It was another example of politicians latching on to this dispute. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and his officers are in no doubt about the position and the Government's support. This is my reply to the right hon. Lady, because she may have overlooked the fact that her deputy leader asked a question about this on Monday and was given a clear reply about the support which was being given by the Home Secretary and by the Government to police officers.
I am glad to know, from the statement that the right hon. Lady issued, her indication of support for the Government's attitude in this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Now answer the question".] I am answering the question by saying that the right hon. Lady, with her statement last night, was doing no more than repeating the statement which had been made by the Home Secretary. But now that she has intruded on this dispute which has been going on for 44 weeks, and now that she is supporting this matter, will she also make it clear that she gives total support to the view that anyone is entitled to join a trade union and should not be dismissed for doing so?

Mr. Mike Thomas: She is an opportunist.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the scenes which have been shown almost daily outside Grunwick have been and are most alarming to the public, and that so far we have had no total condemnation of intimidation and violence on the picketing lines from the Prime Minister—no condemnation at all? Will he now answer my question about what action he proposes


to take to protect the rights of the law-abiding citizen to go to work peacefully? Will he also remember that, when he was asked about Ministers joining the picket line before, he did not condemn them for joining it but even invited other people to go as well?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady reinforces my view that she is trying to turn this matter into a political battle. I agree entirely that this is a most serious issue, and that is why I resent the politicians who latch on to it. As regards the members of the Administration who went on to the picket line, they were members of APEX, members of the union, at a time when the dispute was being peacefully conducted. Now, it is not being peacefully conducted, and I therefore believe that it is necessary to separate legitimate and authorised pickets from those who latch on to it. That seems to me the best way of doing it.
As regards protecting the citizens who want to go to work, it is the job of the police to do that and also to protect the right of peaceful picketing.

Mr. Adley: Without bottles.

The Prime Minister: Of course without bottles. Why does the hon. Gentleman make such obvious remarks? Does he think that it is necessary for me to stand here and defend the police from being hit over the head with bottles? [Interruption]. Hon. Members should try to calm this thing down. It could become extremely serious. I am not addressing myself to anyone in particular except, for the moment, those who are bellowing from the Opposition Benches. I have suggested that Mr. Grantham should try, with the Commissioner of Police, to limit the number of pickets in this matter, that they should agree who they should be, that they should be easily identified and that others should stay away or demonstrate in a different way. There is really no need to try to make this situation worse. It will get bad enough and we should try to keep the temperature down.

Mr. Pavitt: May I assure my right hon. Friend that, except for last Monday week, there has been a clear distinction between the six Gujerati pickets —girls of about 4 ft. 8 in.—and the large mass demonstration which exists on the

other side of the picket lines? May I thank the police for their courtesy? When I and my colleagues seek to talk to the picket lines, we are permitted to do so and we do so and we come away.
May I also assure my right hon. Friend that we are most grateful for the fact that, when there was a breakdown of communications with the police last Monday week, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was able to repair it and Mr. Roy Grantham was then able to speak to responsible officers, which he had not been able to do before that time? As a result, although there have been problems with the demonstration since then, the relations between the official union and the police have gone on very well in spite of the difficulties which both sides are suffering

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this matter and has not tried to exacerbate the issue in any way—in contradistinction to some others. I want to make it clear to him that the police have very clear instructions. They are carrying out their difficult task. Complaints will be investigated. If they are made in the proper form, they will be carried through.
On the general situation, it seems deplorable that after this dispute has been going on for 44 weeks, and on three occasions at least in the last few years people have been dismissed for joining a union, it has had to come to this before we could get people talking about it, as they have been doing this afternoon.

Mr. Brittan: Does the Prime Minister agree that one reason why this dispute has become violent, when it was not violent before, is that it has attracted a great amount of publicity? One of the reasons contributing to that publicity was the presence of three Cabinet Ministers on the picket line. In view of that, will not the Prime Minister agree in retrospect that the presence of those Ministers was most unwise?

The Prime Minister: No. Anybody is entitled to picket peacefully—even the hon. Member, the Leader of the Opposition or myself. I hope to hear from at least one hon. Member opposite this afternoon that the Opposition deplore what has happened in this factory, where


workers who simply wanted to join a trade union were dismissed for that reason.

Mr. Skinner: I have been invited on two or three occasions to visit Grunwick at a time when very few people were taking much interest in the situation there. Does the Prime Minister agree that the fact that there are 1½ million people on the dole has not helped and that it is inviting people like Mr. Ward to recruit cheap labour? We passed the Employment Protection Act to deliver the basic freedom for people to organise. Is the Prime Minister aware that on 16th May this year the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who is Opposition spokesman on employment, issued a letter in which he urged acceptance of the ACAS Report at that time? The Leader of the Opposition should stand up today and announce that she agrees with the acceptance of that report—not five weeks ago, as her right hon. Friend did, but now, when the matter is most important.

The Prime Minister: I have already expressed my view. I have always felt that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) had an understanding of industrial problems. I was not surprised when he issued a statement before the court case saying that in his view, ACAS should be recognised. Is there not one man to be found on the Opposition Benches who will stand up and say this this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the Private Notice question—[Interruption.]

Mrs. Thatcher: Am I right, Mr. Speaker, in thinking that the ACAS Report is in dispute and that the matter is before the court and has been set down for hearing?

The Prime Minister: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is quite correct. As I said in my ruling last week, any reference to the ACAS position would be out of order because the matter is sub judice.

The Prime Minister: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the question that I asked the Leader of the Opposition was whether she supported the management of Grunwick in dismissing workers who join a trade union? That has nothing to do with recognition.

Hon Members: Answer!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the Private Notice Question, let me remind the House that it is concerned solely with the Post Office side.

GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LIMITED

Sir M. Havers: Sir M. Havers (by Private Notice) asked the Attorney-General if he is aware that there are more than 80 sacks of mail at the Cricklewood sorting office to go into and out of the Grunwick processing laboratory which Post Office employees have been wilfully detaining or delaying and whether he will take action to enforce Section 58 of the Post Office Act 1953.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): In answer to the first part of the Question, the best information which I can obtain is that the outward mail which reached the Cricklewood sorting office from Grunwick on Wednesday, 15th June, and which consists of approximately 65 sacks, has not been handled by the Post Office employees at the sorting office and remains there. No other outward mail is there. That sorting office does not handle inward packages for Grunwick, but I understand that a number of letters are there and are not being handled.
The action by the employees at the Cricklewood sorting office is, according to my information, contrary to the instructions of their union's executive committee and general secretary. I understand that those instruction are being followed at other sorting offices and that Grunwick is receiving its inward packages for processing in the normal way.
The Post Office has a responsibility to deliver the mail, and I have to consider whether I should take action to enforce the provisions of the Post Office Act, having regard to the facts which I have stated. I explained in answer to questions on 13th December last that responsibility for taking whatever action is necessary to ensure compliance with the law is normally for the Post Office, for very good reasons which I gave. I said that it was of the greatest importance that the Post Office, which is best placed to


establish the facts and has to take decisions affecting delivery of the mail to the public generally, should be left to carry out its responsibilities and that only in the most exceptional circumstances should the Law Officers step in so as to take the matter out of the hands of the Post Office. On the information available it would appear likely that there are prima facie continuing breaches of the Post Office Act.
In deciding whether those most exceptional circumstances exist, I have to take into account the damage caused by a failure to ensure that the law is complied with, on the one side, and, on the other, the risk of grave damage to the public as a whole if action taken is likely to provoke far more widespread repercussions.
In making this balance it is plainly necessary for me to do so with the best possible information as to the intentions of all those concerned and in particular of the Post Office itself. I have therefore formally written to the Chairman of the Post Office asking him to inform me of the steps which he has taken or proposes in the immediate future to take in accordance with the responsibilities of the Post Office.

Sir M. Havers: Since in its operation of carrying mail, the Post Office, which is a monopoly, is failing in its responsibilities to deliver mail, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that he has a duty ultimately to see that the law is enforced? Will he undertake immediate action, so that this firm is not forced to close as a result of an illegal and gross breach of duty?

The Attorney-General: I have said quite sufficient to make it quite clear what I am doing, the information that I am obtaining, and the reasons why I am obtaining it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman—and may I take this first opportunity of congratulating him upon that honour?— knows very well the doctrine which my predecessors and his have enunciated again and again. The mere fact that there has been an offence committed does not mean that automatically there must be prosecutions. It is absolutely right that before I make a decision of this kind, which can have the most

momentous consequences, I should be fully acquainted with all the facts and should not give undertakings or assurances in advance of knowing them.

Mr. Beith: Does the Attorney-General accept that grave damage to the public as a whole could arise if the principle is ever accepted that the mail of individual customers can be singled out and not delivered or collected? Is there not a world of difference between that and the right of Post Office workers in general to withdraw their labour?

The Attorney-General: I can see a number of differences between those two concepts. One of those differences is that it is the general view, and was a view tentatively expressed by the Master of the Rolls, in the Gouriet case, that for Post Office employees wholly to withdraw their labour would not be a breach of the criminal law and, accordingly, that if the result of premature action, before I know precisely what is the situation, is that Post Office workers in that sorting office, and indeed in other sorting offices throughout London, were totally to withdraw their labour, they would not be committing breaches of the criminal law. It is absolutely right that I should have that in mind as one of the public interest factors which I have to consider when I know all the facts.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that part of the 1956 Act that is called in aid by the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) is, word for word, that which exists in an Act of Queen Anne, now deceased, in chapter 10, in the year AD 1710? In the light of that, will he examine the possibility of learning something from this in terms of changing the law in view of all the circumstances?
Secondly, is the Attorney-General aware that this week I saw outside the Grunwick factory two Post Office vans, fully manned, the contents of which could not be delivered, through no fault of the postmen? Will he take that into account when he examines the facts?

The Attorney-General: On the second point, I will take into account all factors in my examination of the facts in deciding which is the right course for me to take. On the first part of my hon. Friend's


supplementary question, I would point out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has already announced the Government's intention to change the law.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does the Attorney-General think that he is encouraging the rule of law to be obeyed by the pickets and demonstrators when in his statement he implied that he can be blackmailed out of applying the law by the threat of widespread action?

The Attorney-General: I made no such implication.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Attorney-General aware that it is not blackmail but practical sensitivity which has dictated his general approach in these matters? Is he also aware that the fundamental question at stake in this case involves sympathetic action? Does he think it right in a democratic society that citizens of this country, by reason of the fact that they become part of the Post Office, or indeed of any other industrial or commercial or civil concern, should have to surrender their rights to undertake sympathetic action in support of their fellow men?

Hon. Members: Yes.

The Attorney-General: In regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have already said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has stated that the Government intend to bring in legislation to amend the law, and so far as postal officers are concerned to bring it into line with the law as it is as a result of the Conservative Government deliberately amending it, so as to take industrial relations out of the criminal law. That deliberate intention of those who were in charge of the Industrial Relations Bill was clearly stated at the time.
In regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks, of course I must take all these factors into account, but I must not at this time be asked to anticipate a decision, which will be an extremely difficult and delicate decision and one in which I shall take into account the precedents set by all my predecessors, both Labour and Conservative, in making the decision which I shall ultimately have to make.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: In assessing his position in regard to the two competing considerations identified by him in his opening statement, will the Attorney-General give an unequivocal undertaking to give priority to the rule of law and not to support or promulgate the unconstitutional doctrine that the enforcement of the law becomes unnecessary or impracticable if a sufficient number of people combine to seek to break it or to persuade others to do so?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that that is not what I said. Nor is it in accordance with what has been said by predecessor after predecessor in my office on both sides of the political divide. One does not, as I have said, decided that, simply because an offence has been committed, automatically a prosecution must follow. There is a wide public interest factor here, and Conservative Members would be saying a different thing if, as a result of action taken hastily, whether by myself or by anybody else, the whole of the mail of this country were brought to a standstill.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that preservation of the rule of law requires restraint in the initiation of prosecutions in regard to industrial disputes?

The Attorney-General: Of course that is true. It requires restraint whether in relation to industrial disputes or in relation to any other matters. Conservative Front Bench spokesmen who have had my responsibility or its equivalent know that very well indeed.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: We are dealing with a Private Notice Question for which I have allowed a quarter of an hour. I shall take one hon. Member from each side of the House. Mr. Carlisle.

Mr. Carlisle: In making his decision, will the Attorney-General bear in mind— in view of the fact that he appears to accept that prima facie there is a continuing clear breach of the law—that one of the major factors he has to take into account in coming to his final decision is that if at some stage no action is taken, is one not conceding that democracy has given way to mob rule?

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that in some cases that may happen. That is precisely why I want to know all the facts. I hope that the implication from the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is that, for the first time from the Conservative Benches, there is a recognition of the real and important dilemma in this case.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the Attorney-General agree that if the 65 bags of mail now undelivered had contained pornographic or other offensive material, the postmen would have had every right to refuse to deliver them to Grunwick? Why, then, in the Attorney-General's opinion, do Opposition Members demand a different set of conditions than those for pornographic material when dealing with something that is equally offensive, or even more offensive, to postmen, who consider that they have a right to refuse to deliver it?

The Attorney-General: I think the only answer I can give to my hon. Friend is that one hot potato is enough for anybody.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: The Lord President—Business Statement.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Post Office Bill.
Motions on the Social Security Benefits Up-Rating, the Child Benefit, and Supplementary Benefits Orders.
Remaining stages of the Local Authorities (Restoration of Works Powers) Bill.
Motion on the Financial Assistance for Industry (Increase of Limit) Order.
TUESDAY 28TH JUNE—There will be a debate on energy, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 29TH JUNE—Supply [25th Allotted Day]: until 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the recruiting methods and techniques of SLADE, on a motion for the Adjournment.
At 7 o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.
Motion on the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure.
THURSDAY 30TH JUNE—Proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Bill.
Motions on Northern Ireland Orders on Various Emergency Provisions (Continuance), the 1974 Act (Interim Period Extension), Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) and Fatal Accidents.
FRIDAY 1ST JULY—Motions on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order and on the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order.
MONDAY 4TH JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: the subject for debate will be decided by the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru.

Mrs. Thatcher: On Thursday's business, is the Leader of the House aware that we are grateful to him for responding to representations from this side of the House to include increased penalties for acts of terrorism in the Bill which is the first Order of the Day, so that they will take effect this summer?
Secondly, we were promised the direct elections Bill on Thursday or Friday. Will the Lord President confirm that it will be introduced tomorrow, because we had thought that the debate would be coming on more quickly than now appears to be the case? Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of when it will be?

Mr. Foot: No doubt the first matter will be a subject for comment during the debate on Thursday and Friday of next week.
The direct elections Bill will be published and presented to the House tomorrow. I cannot give the right hon. Lady an exact date for the Second Reading debate, but I presume that I shall be able to make an announcement on that next week.

Mr. John Mendelson: Would the Lord President undertake to discuss with the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Secretary of State would make a statement early next week on his attempt to help achieve a settlement in


the Grunwick dispute, especially in view of the fact that, so far, the House has discussed only the legal implications of a situation which is essentially industrial, and because Parliament and the country could then see how trade union rights are being threatened? That would also enable legislation that the House has passed and discussed in detail—during which discussions the present situation was foreseen —to be properly considered by the nation as a whole.

Mr. Foot: I shall discuss the matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) has raised with the Secretary of State for Employment and we shall consider whether a statement from him next week could help.

Mr. Powell: In view of the approach of the long recess, does the Leader of the House expect to be able to announce next week the establishment of a conference under your presidency, Mr. Speaker, so that it can begin its work before the recess?

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a statement next week, but I shall certainly see how we can expedite matters to try to get a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will the White Paper on transport be published soon and, if so, will the Leader of the House allow adequate time for us to debate it soon after its publication?

Mr. Foot: I expect that the White Paper will be published next week and we shall then give consideration to the time that the House may wish for debate. However, let us first publish the White Paper.

Mr. Crouch: Is the Leader of the House aware that, notwithstanding the rigours of an all-night sitting and our appearances, we are all a day younger than we should be, and what will he do about it?

Mr. Foot: I am not sure how I can give back to the House its lost day. However, despite the fact that we would have been happy to get through business in the time previously allocated, the House seemed to do pretty well.

Mr. Molloy: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to

Early-Day Motions Nos. 377, 378 and 379, which relate to the appalling case which has outraged almost the entire nation, of a young woman who was brutally assaulted and subjected to attempted rape? Her assailant, a soldier, was sentenced by the judge to three years' imprisonment. The appeal judges, on a false premise, reduced that to six months' suspended sentence and told the assailant to be a good boy. One of the judges recommended that perhaps the girl should have submitted to being raped. Is the Leader of the House aware that the judges went on to say that their decision might arouse public outrage and that they had made the decision in order to ensure that there was public outrage. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that many people are asking why Parliament cannot discuss the matter? Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to give that consideration?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be pleased to remove the Right Honourable Sir Wentworth Roskill from the office which he holds as Justice of the High Court.]
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be pleased to remove the honourable Sir Gordon Slynn from the office which he holds as Justice of the High Court.]
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be pleased to remove the honourable Sir Philip Wien from the office which he held as Justice of the High Court.]

Mr. Foot: I shall not comment on all the detailed statements that my hon. Friend has made. I know that there is considerable interest about this in the country, the House and the Government. There was a leading article in The Times two or three days ago on the subject and I hope that it will not be regarded as too intrusive of me to say that I agreed with it.

Mr. Cormack: Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that there is no particular significance in allowing the Scottish National Party 4th July for its debate?

Mr. Foot: It was not my choice. I believe that it was chosen by the Opposition.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Leader of the House aware that, although—in my right hon. Friend's terminology—the House did "rather well", there is a growing opinion on both sides of the House and outside that this is a most incompetent way to scrutinise legislation, although it is no fault of the existing establishment? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a substantial demand for the system to be radically changed and that the sooner we get down to doing it the better?

Mr. Foot: The whole question of any radical change in our procedures, to achieve the effects indicated by my hon. Friend, is being discussed by the Procedure Committee and we shall see what that Committee recommends. I shall not prejudge that. However, I have always held the view—and I have seen no reason for changing it—that the possibility of longer sittings, which do happen from time to time, is necessary in order to ensure that the Opposition enjoy their rights as well as the Government.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Will the Leader of the House consider the possibility of holding a foreign affairs debate before the House rises for the recess, particularly a debate on the subject of Cyprus, which, now that there is a new Government in Turkey, is a matter worthy of consideration by the House?

Mr. Foot: Of course the subject to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred would be worthy of consideration and I understand his reason for suggesting a debate. However, I cannot promise a debate in Government time before the recess. But there are other opportunities for debate either on subjects chosen by the Opposition or by other means.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that, although his observations on The Times editorial on the rape case are interesting, they do not go far enough, because we now want a debate on sentencing policy for rape? The law and the judiciary are being brought into disrepute by the exercise of sex discrimination and by the prejudices of leading judges. Shall we have an opportunity to express our view on sentencing policy for rape?

Mr. Foot: As I said in my previous reply, I understand the strong feelings on the subject that exist in many parts of

the House and the country. I cannot exclude the possibility of a debate on the subject at some stage, but the article in The Times indicated some of the concern that prevails in the country about these decisions. The questions that have been put in the House today have also helped to indicate feelings here.

Mr. Fairbairn: In view of the statement made by the Attorney-General today, will the Lord President find time for the House to debate the criteria upon which one may avoid prosecution for a criminal offence in England and Wales by organising sufficient hysterical public or political reaction? I have a Press Association photograph of the serious assault that was committed upon a police officer today, and I wonder whether the person who committed that assault may be able to escape prosecution by organising sufficient threat of industrial action.

Mr. Foot: Not merely do I repudiate every inference that the hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn from my right hon. and learned Friends remarks, but I do not believe that there is any justification for the implication in what he has just said. I am sure that, on consideration, the hon. and learned Gentleman will be eager to withdraw his remarks.

Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the overriding importance of preserving the rule of law and of the abysmal ignorance of hon. Members opposite of the effects of indiscriminate prosecution, as evidenced, in particular, by the question of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), is it not time that we had a debate on the rule of law so that the education of hon. Members opposite could at least begin?

Mr. Foot: That is a more powerful case for such a debate than any I have heard from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. EIdon Griffiths: May I reinforce the plea of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) that there should be a statement by the Home Secretary on the threat to public order outside the Grunwick factory? Will the Leader of the House approach you, Mr. Speaker, so that the House may extricate itself from the difficulty of, on the one hand, your having to protect the rights of


individuals at law and, on the other, of the House having the duty to consider a major matter of public importance?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has completely misinterpreted what my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) said. My hon. Friend went out of his way to underline that he was asking for a statement by the Secretary of State for Employment on the industrial aspects of the case so that we may move towards a settlement.

Mr. Lipton: May I ask my right hon. Friend to have another look at my Early-Day Motions Nos. 377, 378 and 379 about the three High Court judges? They have the support of a large number of hon. Members and they are unusual motions because this is the only way in which High Court judges can be brought to book by Parliament. Can time be found between now and the Summer Recess for a short debate on all the ramifications of this case, because public opinion is disgusted by the fact that a girl was brutally and savagely assaulted and her assailant received only a suspended six-month prison sentence? Judges cannot be allowed to get away with that sort of conduct.

Mr. Foot: I have nothing to add to what I said previously on this subject, though I shall take into account the representations of my hon. Friend, who has very great experience in these matters.

Mr. Wiggin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a rumour that, in an endeavour to avoid a carry-over Session, we shall be asked to sit for at least one extra week in July? Is he aware that the many hundreds of hon. Members, staff and police with school-age children will deeply resent such a manoeuvre and will he try to put into practice his previous commitment to help us to see our children at least for some part of the year?

Mr. Foot: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point and I hope that the arrangements that will be made will satisfy him.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the five hon. Members who have been seek-

ing to catch my eye since the Lord President finished his statement.

Mr. James Lamond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Hansard for 18th May has not yet been published? Will he inquire why this is?

Mr. Foot: This may be a consequence of the difficulties that we had a short while ago, but in view of my hon. Friend's question I shall certainly make inquiries about the production of this issue.

Mr. Aitken: If the Secretary of State for Employment is to make the statement requested by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) on trade union rights, will the Leader of the House make sure that it places equal, if not greater, emphasis on individuals' rights that are at stake here, particularly the individual's right to work whether or not he wishes to join a trade union?

Mr. Foot: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we are awaiting a statement from the Leader of the Opposition and I am sure that we are all eager to see it. I did not say to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone that there would necessarily be a statement by the Secretary of State for Employment next week, but only that we would consult to see whether such a statement would be helpful. The Secretary of State is seeking to get a settlement of the dispute so that many of these other difficulties can also be overcome.

Mr. Madden: In the statement that the Secretary of State for Employment is to make on the important issues stemming from the Grunwick dispute, will he particularly take into account the new development of some employers seeking, during disputes, to transport workers through picket lines? Will he consider the proposal of The Guardian and others that one authorised picket should be allowed to board such vehicles to attempt peacefully to persuade workers not to cross picket lines? This would help to meet the rights of workers and would remove the possibility of violence in disputes.

Mr. Foot: I did not say that the Secretary of State was necessarily going to make a statement next week. I said that I would convey to him the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for


Penistone and others that he should make a statement. If he did so, it would be a statement on the industrial aspects of the situation and no doubt it would be designed to assist in getting a settlement, if that were open to him.
On the second matter of the general law about picketing, the House will recall that we had many discussions on this matter during the passage of the Employment Protection Act and that we all had to admit, including myself as the Minister responsible for introducing that legislation, that we had not yet solved the problem of how all rights are to be properly protected in such circumstances. We therefore carried on with the law as it stood previously and made no effective alteration. The consideration of all these questions involves many wider aspects, and I do not think that we could have a statement on these matters next week.

Mr. Marten: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the past 10 days there have been six meetings of the Councils of EEC Ministers, but that we have had only one statement? The Government are slipping back into their bad old ways. May we have statements next week on the major meetings that have already taken place?

Mr. Foot: I am, as ever, grateful for the hon. Gentleman's vigilance. I shall see which Ministers have, in the hon. Gentleman's words, slipped back, and what the reasons were. I am sure that there must be good reasons if there has been any departure from the highest standards that we were seeking to introduce. I hope that I shall be able to go some way towards satisfying the hon. Gentleman by remedying the situation.

Mr. Michael Latham: In relation to the direct elections Bill, and the novel idea of including two alternative voting systems in the measure, will Ministers be outlining their preferences on Second Reading and using their best endeavours to carry them into law?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that the House will await with interest the publication of the Bill tomorrow. Many hon. Members have shown an interest in it. When hon. Members read the Bill, they will see that we have solved some of the difficulties outlined in our two-day debate on direct elections. For example, the

right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) indicated how difficult it was to ensure that a proper choice could be put to the House. The form of legislation that the Government have devised overcomes this difficulty. I hope that we shall be congratulated by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) on that account.

AIR SERVICES (UNITED KINGDOM-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT)

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the conclusion of the United Kingdom-United States air services negotiations.
Agreement was reached yesterday on the main provisions of a new air services agreement. Final texts still have to be completed before the new agreement can be formally signed and come into effect. This will probably be at the end of next month. The agreement will then be laid before Parliament as a Command Paper. Meanwhile, services will continue as at present.
The most important and novel feature of the new agreement is the mechanism to control capacity on North Atlantic routes. This is designed to reduce the waste of fuel and other resources that results from flying too many empty seats, while preserving competition and benefiting the travelling public. This has from the outset been one of our most important objectives.
Moreover, our airlines will be able to open up new routes to the United States. The new points are Houston, Atlanta, Seattle and Dallas-Fort Worth, and a non-stop route to San Francisco. These routes will enable us to increase our penetration of the North Atlantic market. We have also got a better route across the Pacific for future passenger and cargo services from Hong Kong to the West Coast of the United States.
We have also secured agreement to single designation by both sides on all the North Atlantic routes except two. This means that with these exceptions the British carrier will face competition from only one American airline. The Americans will be putting two airlines on New York and Los Angeles. My intention is to designate Laker as our second carrier to New York. We shall


retain the option to designate a second carrier on some other route. I intend to keep this open.
We have obtained substantial reductions in the rights of United States airlines to carry fifth freedom traffic beyond London and Hong Kong to other destinations, although some important fifth freedom rights will continue. A number of these rights will disappear immediately, others after three and five years.
There will also be greater flexibility for the airlines, our own as well as the American, to carry passengers on the same aircraft to more than one destination but without the right to pick up passengers from one destination point and take them to another. This is a new concept which should contribute to more economic use of resources. But we have given notice to the United States authorities that if it turned out to our disadvantage we would want to review it.
A new tariffs article has been agreed which removes the ambiguities of the old tariffs article and should avoid the disputes that have occured in the past.
It has also been agreed that, in accordance with my airports policy statement of 5th April, the new routes to Houston and Atlanta will from the start come into Gatwick. This will also apply to the Dallas route, provided that the British carrier uses Gatwick.
New routes have also been agreed linking Bermuda and our dependencies in the Caribbean to the United States.
Finally, the Americans have agreed to work with us towards a new multilateral arrangement on charter services between North America and Europe. We already have a bilateral arrangement with the United States, which is working well. This will now become part of the new air services agreement. The development of charter services, which both sides desire to foster, will offer further benefits to the travelling public.
I believe that this agreement will open a new and expanding era. It will provide significant new opportunities for the airlines of both sides and promises real benefits to the consumer. It will give British airlines a fairer opportunity to fight for a bigger share of a growing market.

Mr. Nott: May I confine myself to three particular questions at this stage? First, could the Secretary of State prevail upon his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to enable us to debate the heads of agreement as soon as possible, because we would like the opportunity in the House to assess the advantages and disadvantages of this agreement and it would be useful to do so before the Summer Recess?
Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, with the benefit of hindsight, he still thinks that he was right to abrogate the agreement in the manner and at the time he did last year? Does he not think that many of the advantages which he has obtained from this arrangement could have been obtained without the brinkmanship which arose?
Thirdly, has he ever known any cartel, whether an industrial one or a Government one, as in this case, which has in the end proved of greater benefit to the consumer—and I am talking of the airline users in this case—than the free play of competition?

Mr. Dell: At any rate, I congratulate the hon. Member on posing those questions rather than making the silly and, may I say, ignorant statement that he issued to the Press yesterday. As to a debate, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President, but I will speak to him about it because I should be very glad to have a debate.
The hon. Member asks whether I was right to denounce the previous agreement and to do so at the time I chose. Yes, I was right to do so. I have gained benefits from doing so. The time was carefully calculated. My own view of negotiations of this kind with major commercial interests involved is that the final agreement should and could be concluded only at a time of crunch. Whether that had happened in the last few days, in six months' time or in three months' time would not have made any difference at all to the situation. The timing was right, and we have gained from what has been done.
As to a cartel, the hon. Gentleman speaks as though the airlines operated in a free market. He should wake up to the situation that the operations of airlines are subject to Government agreements. What we have been trying to do and have


succeeded in doing in this agreement is to improve the conditions from our point of view. That could be done only by the Government's intervening to denounce the previous agreement and to negotiate a new one. We have done that successfully.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be widespread satisfaction, certainly on this side of the House, at this fair and just resolution of a difficult situation which has affected relations between the United States and this country? Is he also aware that his Department's initiative in seeking to resolve this difficult problem in the way it did will certainly earn the gratitude of very many people, not least those in the airline industry?

Mr. Dell: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I am particularly grateful to him for describing the agreement as fair and just. The main thing about this agreement was that it should be acceptable to both sides and should be able to provide a framework within which both sides could operate. I was very glad to see on the tapes last night that the Chairman of Pan-Am, while conceding that there had been a transfer of economic benefits from the United States flag to the British flag, said he welcomed the fact that a framework had been created within which both sides could operate. That was what we were trying to do, and we succeeded.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the Secretary of State go further than merely talking to his right hon. Friend the Lord President and actually press for a debate. Is he aware that questions and answers of this sort are bound to deal with matters so particular as to ruin the attempt to understand the whole package, or in generalities so general as to be almost banal?
In the meantime, will the Secretary of State say how he satisfied himself that allowing services by an American carrier to start from two American gateway cities —namely, Atlanta and Dallas—while allowing only one city to the British carrier concerned would be fair? Can he tell me what it is that so pleases him about getting services to a British carrier across the Pacific from Hong Kong to the West Coast, because I was flying such services 17 years ago?
Finally, could the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about how—[Interrup-

tion.] If the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) will wait, I will get to something he can understand. Can the Secretary of State say a bit more about how the capacity limitation agreements will work?

Mr. Dell: I shall certainly speak to my right hon. Friend, but it might be better for the House if a debate on this subject took place after the agreement had been signed.
As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is some inequity in the solo rights for three years granted to United States airlines as against British Caledonian at Houston, taking the national position overall, including Manchester, and the relative value of these points, we were of the opinion that this was a reasonable deal. I should also say that we were asked by British Caledonian to obtain for it solo rights at Houston for a period during which it could build up that traffic. That was a very difficult demand to satisfy but we satisfied it and we have, therefore, provided British Caledonian with a very significant selling point as well as, through the system of capacity control, enabling it, when it goes into Atlanta, to go in with some prospect of success.
As for the route to the West Coast, this is something which the associates in Hong Kong wanted. They wish to develop it for a period and they think this is a valuable route to have been included in the agreement.
As regards the working of the capacity control mechanism, this derives, first, from the existing situation and, secondly, from estimates made by airlines as to the capacity that should be provided during the next similar period, with provisions for a fall-back mechanism in the agreement. This is a mechanism which obviously has to be seen in some detail, and no doubt when the Command Paper is before the House the hon. Gentleman will want to examine the details.

Mr. Pardoe: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say about there not being a free market before the agreement, is he aware that any consumer ought always to look with a jaundiced eye at any agreement which allows producers to limit competition and that this agreement does just that? Will he therefore tell us what benefits consumers will receive? Will there be any lower prices? Will there


be any greater choice? Will there be any better services which we have not had so far?
Secondly, why has the right hon. Gentleman left open the question of the second British carrier on the Los Angeles or other North American routes? There is a second British carrier, British Caledonian, which claims that it has been very adversely affected by this agreement. Why has British Caledonian not been designated for the second route?

Mr. Dell: The benefits to the consumer will derive from a number of elements in the agreement. The first is that in our judgment and according to our calculations—I have not seen these challenged, and I believe that the United States accepts them—the savings in the waste of energy and of capacity flying across the North Atlantic should eventually lead to lower fares in real terms. What consumers want in transatlantic travel is lower fares in real terms. They do not want empty seats. The other element in the better provision for consumers is the additional gateways into the United States that we have as a result of the agreement.
On the question of a second British carrier, in our judgment Los Angeles is not at the moment worthy of dual designation because the amount of traffic does not justify it. It is open to us to select a point in the United States at the time we wish for dual designation. That is a matter that we now have to consider, and that is an option that I must keep open for the time being.
The hon. Gentleman referred to British Caledonian being adversely affected. I am prepared to go into that matter in detail, if necessary, but it is not true that the agreement adversely affects British Caledonian. The agreement is beneficial to British Caledonian on terms far better than the company could have expected to achieve and certainly better than would have been achieved under the Bermuda Agreement.

Mr. Conlan: Will my right hon. Friend be rather more specific and tell us whether the new agreement allows United States carriers to fly more passengers into British territories than British Airways and the other British carriers may fly into the United States?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the number of passengers who travel on airlines within a system of single or dual designation will depend on the competitiveness of the airlines. I cannot command the relative competitiveness of particular airlines. The combination rights granted under this agreement will enable American airlines, without taking on new passengers at London, to go forward from London to other destinations. We have similar rights in the opposite direction. I am coming nowhere near to saying that the agreement results in a fifty-fifty splitting of passengers. We have tried to give British airlines a better opportunity to get a fairer share of this relatively rapidly rising market.

Mr. Adley: If the criticisms of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) have any validity, should they not be aimed at IATA rather than at the Bermuda Agreement? Have Concorde's-landing rights at New York and Washington been reconfirmed in the new agreement? Have the persons signing the agreement on behalf of the United States-Government authority to sign on behalf of all 50 States in the Union? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the British Government are entitled to expect the American Government to assert our rights in any court dispute which may subsequently arise about the conditions entered into in the agreement?

Mr. Dell: In respect of Concorde, we have the same rights under the new agreement as under the old. The prospects for Concorde at New York in the immediate future depend on the results of court proceedings now in progress in the United States. I hope that they turn out favourably in the end. The trial period in Washington ends in September. I am satisfied, after examining the procedures through which the United States Government have to go before confirming rights at Washington, that they cannot confirm those rights before about February. I think it is unlikely that Concorde's rights at Washington will not be extended up to the date of that determination. I very much hope that the determination will be in favour of Concorde.
The question whether the treaty is signed on behalf of all 50 States raises


interesting points about the federal constitutions. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the situation there as well as I do.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and note the reluctant, grudging approval by the Opposition for what he has done. Will he instruct the Opposition on the outcome of the operation of a free-for-all in this area, which they seem to advocate so actively?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the very large losses made by American airlines on the New York route. One achievement of the agreement is that passengers will obtain better fares in real terms. It is no use the Opposition trying to pretend that this is a free market. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) is perhaps new to this subject and does not understand the element of control on the civil aviation scene. That no doubt led him to make the curious remarks that he thought it right to make yesterday. We are dealing with a situation in which Governments are involved. In my judgment of that situation, Governments should support their national airlines as well as protect the interests of consumers.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is already considerable doubt whether the agreement is as benefical to United Kingdom airlines as the statement suggests, that the optimistic forecast in the last paragraph may not come to pass and that, therefore, an early debate on this subject would be welcome? Will he assure the House that the terms of the agreement are wholly in accord with the policy principles agreed in the House last year?

Mr. Dell: On the second point, the terms of the agreement are very much consistent with the policy that was debated in the House two years—not one year—ago. One thing that surprises me is that, although the Opposition seemed to go along in general with the policies outlined by the Government at that time —leaving aside Laker Skytrain—they seem to have reneged on that view. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was doubt as to how beneficial the agreement will be to British airlines. I should emphasise that the extent to which the agreement is beneficial to British airlines

will depend to a significant extent on the competitiveness of British airlines. We have achieved a framework that gives them better opportunities. That is what we sought, and that is what we achieved.

Mr. Viggers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that direct air links with a number of United States cities—I have specific knowledge of Houston—will be warmly welcomed in those cities and should also be welcomed here because they will strengthen Britain's position as an entrepot? Will he tell us more about the new combination rights? Is he satisfied that there will be no loss to British carriers from the fact that Pan-Am and TWA have the opportunity to switch passengers on through flights from London to Europe?

Mr. Dell: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about Houston and the warm welcome he gives to the agreement. He should see the combination rights against the background of the cancellation of the significant fifth freedom rights which United States airlines had. Some of those are immediately cancelled. But those being operated from this country are to be cancelled in a phased way. It is against that background that the combination rights have to be seen. We have certain equivalent combination rights. Nevertheless, combination rights could be a cost to this country which would have to be set off against the benefits.
I said in my statement, as we said in the course of the negotiations, that we would watch the operation of these combination rights carefully. If they operate to our disadvantage, this is a matter which we shall wish to discuss under the consultation provisions of the new agreement.

Mr. Sandelson: My right hon. Friend has referred to the specific benefits to be derived by British Airways and British Caledonian. Will he say something about the charters, bearing in mind the statement made yesterday by the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), in which he suggested that charters were at least as well off, and probably better off, under the old arrangements?

Mr. Dell: The position of charters is entirely satisfactory under this new agreement. This is another curious aspect of


the statement by the hon. Member for St. Ives yesterday. He seemed to think that charters operated in a free market. We have done well in charters because there is a favourable agreement with the United States governing their operation. That agreement is now incorporated in a sense into this new agreement, but it is likely to be continued with its favourable elements as a result of the new agreement. Therefore, the point that the hon. Gentleman made yesterday about charters is another example of his entire ignorance of the subject.

Mr. Trotter: Is it not to be regarded as fair that there should be, as the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) outlined, an equal division between the United Kingdom and the United States services between these two countries? Is it not a fact that that was the aim of the Government—to achieve parity—and that they have failed in that objective?
In particular, how is it that a cargo service has been authorised from Houston to London when there is no equal provision for the United Kingdom operator to operate a cargo service in the opposite direction? Is that not damaging the passenger service, which should carry cargo on that service?

Mr. Dell: I shall check what the hon. Gentleman says, but I think that he is wrong about cargo between Houston and London. As for equal division, we have achieved single designation on all except two routes over the North Atlantic. That is a very significant achievement. I was told by the Opposition during the process of the negotiation—when I learned from the hon. Member for St. Ives that they were taking a helpful attitude by keeping silent—that single designation was something that the Americans would never accept. They have, in fact, accepted it on all routes except two.

Mr. Neubert: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the welcome features of the agreement is the full establishment of the Laker Skytrain on the London-New York route? If this prompts American competitors, as is likely, will they be subject to the same very stringent conditions as have been imposed on the Laker licence at both ends of the route, including the use of Stansted Airport?

Mr. Dell: I have just confirmed that I am right about cargo between Houston and London. There are equal rights in both directions. It is one of the oddities that it should be considered by some that they are entitled to solo rights from London to Houston on cargo. We could not achieve that, but there are equal rights in both directions.
In reply to the question about Skytrain, we shall have to see what proposals the United States makes by way of such reciprocity as it may wish to exercise.

Mr. Roper: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Department on their remarkable breakthrough in persuading the United States to accept the idea of having some measure of capacity control, which we were told for a long time was anathema to the Americans. When are we likely to have the details of the White Paper? Has my right hon. Friend's Department made any calculations of what the increasing share of North Atlantic traffic will mean in the rate of return on capital invested by British carriers in aircraft on these routes?

Mr. Dell: As to the time when the details of the agreement will become available, as I said in my statement the intention now is to write the detailed agreement. We expect that to be signed by the end of July, and then the details will be made available to the House.
My hon. Friend asked me whether we had made any calculations as to the rate of return on British capital invested in the airlines. The calculations which we have made so far show that there are likely to be beneficial results to the British airlines in revenue terms arising from this agreement, but these must necessarily be highly speculative. The result will depend on the competitiveness of the United Kingdom airlines, and the return on capital will depend on the rate at which they exploit their new opportunities.

Mr. Higgins: Whilst I accept that the arrangement may do something to ameliorate the effects of an imperfect market, may I ask how the Secretary of State proposes to ensure that reduction in costs is reflected in price and not in profits? Secondly, what does he believe will happen to the aircraft and aircrews


which are not needed as a result of the capacity restraints?

Mr. Dell: I hope that the latter will not occur. As for how we shall control prices, there is a tariff article in the agreement and no doubt the degree of competition which exists in this field will help.

Mr. Nott: Will the Secretary of State explain one other point about single designation? We had always understood that this was what he was out to achieve. There is double designation on two main routes. Is it not the case that if the number of passengers builds up on any other routes a trigger operates and then it is possible for double designation to arise? The right hon. Gentleman said that he had achieved single designation. That is clearly not generally the case. It is not even the case, is it, on other routes if the traffic builds up to a certain level?

Mr. Dell: There is a threshold in respect of gateways with single designation—600,000 passengers in two consecutive years. Where there is solo operation, it is 450,000 passengers in two consecutive years. Our estimates show that it is unlikely, especially taking into account the fact that in due course new gateways will be open, that these thresholds will be reached until at any rate the late 1980s.

GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LIMITED

Mr. Arthur Latham: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the serious public consequences of developments in relation to the Grunwick dispute and the imminent danger now in prospect.
Like me and the rest of the House, Mr. Speaker, you will have been gravely concerned to learn today of the policeman admitted to hospital with serious head injuries as a result of events at Grunwick. We are all gravely concerned, too, about the other 19 people who have suffered injury in events there today.
It is evident that the situation has  deteriorating daily and now, with  morning's events, I submit that it is

likely to become hourly worse. It is no exaggeration to say that there is a grave risk, from the way in which events are proceeding, that it will not be long before someone is killed in consequence of some of the conflict which has occurred in that part of London. It is better to seek to achieve a debate now than to do so subsequently against the background of a fatality of this kind.
I am aware that in considering such an application, Mr. Speaker, you are required to examine and consider, amongst other things, the probability of dealing with the matter in another way and at another time. In the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House this afternoon there was no intimation of a possible debate. There was a request from one of my hon. Friends for a statement about the dispute itself, which is not what my application deals with directly.
May I also draw to your attention Mr. Speaker, the evidence of the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon, which seem to indicate that the question-and-answer form is not the most satisfactory way of dealing with the issue anyway.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is within your discretion either to grant a debate later today or to propose a debate on Monday. It might be ironic to make provision during the Report stage of the Post Office Bill on Monday, but I think that it would be more fitting, in view of the urgency, if you were able to see your way to recognising that the matter should be debated today.
I am aware of the importance of the fisheries matter which will be before the House later today. It will be for you to decide, Mr. Speaker, whether my application should have precedence over that matter. It would certainly be open to the Government to propose a suspension of Standing Orders to make good time that might be devoted to this issue rather than fisheries.
I wish to emphasise that between now and next Monday, or any other time during next week when a debate might be granted, there will have been at least two more busy mornings in the Grunwick area, with the possibility that we may be discussing a death rather than simply injuries by the time that debate takes place.
May I also emphasise, Mr. Speaker, that my application is in different terms from that which was made on Tuesday? It does not deal with the Grunwick dispute itself. It is true that there is one ACAS aspect of that which it might be argued is sub judice. It could also be argued that the Secretary of State for Employment and the Law Officers have been busy in that connection, which would meet the question of dealing with the issue in another way, a question which you are asked to take into account. I am not seeking in my application or in any proposed debate to deal with individual arrests and charges. Obviously, they will be dealt with in court and can be subject to the sub judice rule as regards consideration in the House.
Thirdly, I submit that any complaints about allegations concerning individual policemen or groups of policemen, which may be subject to the use of the new procedure of the Police Complaints Board, would not be the subject of such a debate, because clearly they would also be in a sense sub judice. What I am seeking to have debated in the House is how the situation outside Grunwick is being handled.
There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been recent eyewitnesses to the events at Grunwick and who, with many others in London, have made comments about things they have seen at first hand. Whether it be right or wrong—which it would be improper for me to comment on in making such an application—it seems to be the fact that the policy of arrest and the use of force is not being exercised as a local discretion but is part of a deliberate policy ordered from the top. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]. I do not understand the protests. It is accepted that the police may in certain circumstances determine that it is—[Interruption.]——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has long been established that in making an application under Standing Order No. 9 the hon. Member concerned makes a very brief speech outlining why he believes that I should grant the application, but he does not try to make a speech on the general issue.

Mr. Latham: I was not seeking to do that, Mr. Speaker. What I was seeking

to do, with some emphasis, was to distinguish between the application I am making and one which I know you have already rejected and any other form of application which might relate to matters which are sub judice. I am urging that there is a case for the House to consider a situation in which it is being said, rightly or wrongly, that actions are being taken in some respects to enforce the law, in other respects partially and in other respects not at all.
What I am seeking to establish with the Chair is that the public consequences are considerable. There are at stake several matters of public concern, not least the standing of the police and the regard for their impartiality. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] This is a serious situation, and the place for a debate about it——

Mr. Speaker: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has made his points. Perhaps he would now be good enough to wind up his application and let me consider it.

Mr. Latham: I am simply urging, Mr. Speaker, that the situation is deteriorating at an escalating rate, that the place for these issues to be determined is this House, and that there should be a debate here because issues of public order are at stake. I believe that Parliament has a responsibility and a function to act as a safety valve in such situations. Unless we carry out that duty as a Parliament, the consequences of what happens at Willesden will be very serious.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he would make this application this afternoon for leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the serious public consequences of developments in relation to the Grunwick dispute and the imminent danger now in prospect
I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I have given thought during the day to the issues that are raised, but I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's application.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,


the Attorney-General's answer today to a Private Notice Question that he intends to inquire as to the intentions of postal workers to widen the interference with the mail in retaliation if he should initiate action to enforce the Post Office Act against those who have been interfering with the mail of Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd.
I make this application because we have heard from the question-and-answer session this afternoon that about 85 bags of mail are immobilised in a post office in London in undisputed breach of the Act. There was no dispute about that at all. The Attorney-General said today that if the Post Office continued not to take action to enforce the law his intention was to find out how serious the retaliatory action of Post Office workers would be before he decided which way the balance tipped. That inevitably means that if the Attorney-General receives a very hostile and militant reply from the Post Office workers or the Union of Post Office Workers he will, in accordance with his answer today, decide that the balance tips against enforcing the law.
I put it to you Mr. Speaker, that under the terms of the Standing Order this is a matter of the highest importance, because it means that the principal Law Officer of the Crown is saying that if there is to be an unpleasant row he will not enforce the law, but that if he finds that the reaction—[Interruption.]—upon the public—I admit that he put it in that way—is not too serious, the balance could tip in favour of his enforcing the terms of the Act.
In my submission, the importance of this matter within the ambit of the Standing Order is that it undermines the authority of the law and subordinates it to organised militancy. The matter is urgent, because mail has been held up already for a considerable time, and the hold-up of mail on this scale in respect of a single user of the mail raises a matter of most urgent principle, because the damage being done to that mail user is obviously enormous.
Unless the machinery of Standing Order No. 9 is used there is obviously no prospect of the matter's being debated within the next 10 days, because we know the business for next week. It makes no possible provision for the matter to be debated. There is no way in which it could be introduced on any of the sub-

jects announced. We also know the business for tomorrow.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the matter comes within the three requirements of the Standing Order. It is urgent and important and should be debated so that we may express to the Attorney-General our view of the criteria he should use in deciding whether to enforce the law.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Attorney-General's answer today to a Private Notice Question that he intends to inquire as to the intentions of postal workers to widen the interference with the mail in retaliation if he should initiate action to enforce the Post Office Act against those who have been interfering with the mail of Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd.
I listened carefully to the hon. and learned Member's argument. I am asked to take into account all the various factors and to give no reasons for my decision. I am afraid that I cannot accede to the hon. and learned Member's application.

SUB JUDICE RULE

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to the Minister, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and, indeed, to the fish for delaying matters longer. I wish to raise a matter of importance for the order of our procedures. On the one hand, the House must be conscious of the sub judice rule and the need to preserve the rights of individuals who might find themselves before the courts. On the other hand, there is the clear matter of urgent public importance arising out of the threats to order at the Grunwick factory.
I recognise the dilemma in which you find yourself, Mr. Speaker, in wanting to protect both of these aspects. However, one cannot always be bound by the precedent of "Erskine May" in these matters. Perhaps over the next day or two you might find it possible to consult the Lord President, who did not answer my question on


this issue earlier, and other authorities of the House. Perhaps you could consider whether there is a way in which the House could extricate itself from the present difficulty which would allow us to do our duty by discussing these issues without being inhibited in every respect by the sub judice rule.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. No doubt he reflects the views of many other hon. Members. I listened carefully to today's exchanges. I must say that I am anxious to protect the rights of the House, but also, of course, to maintain our complete caution with regard to cases before the courts. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 11TH JULY

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Charles Morrison,
Mr. Mike Noble,
Mr. Ronald Bell.

BILLS PRESENTED

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Secretary Mason, supported by Mr. Secretary Rees, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. J. D. Concannon, Mr. James A. Dunn and Mr. Ray Carter, presented a Bill to increase the maximum term of

imprisonment which may be imposed on conviction on indictment of an offence under Section 19 or 20 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 or Section 15 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1975: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

NATIONAL LAND FUND (NO. 2)

Mr. Patrick Cormack, supported by Mr. Andrew Faulds, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Mr. Stanley Newens, Sir David Renton, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Ms. Maureen Colquhoun, Mr. Jasper More, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Mr. Robert Rhodes James and Mr. W. Benyon, presented a Bill to provide for the appointment of Trustees to administer the National Land Fund established by Section 48(1) of the Finance Act 1946 and to extend the purposes for which the fund may be used: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15th July and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Customs Duties and Drawbacks (Tobacco) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 921) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Snape.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[24TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Orders of the Day — FISHERIES

[Commission Documents: R/1173/77, R/ 1174/77 and S/779/77.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Snape].

4.54 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: We have waited for some time while the quota of allotted time for Supply has been eroded by various contributions, the merits of which, by using some restraint, I shall not comment upon.
This afternoon we want to give some expression to the real anxieties of the fishing industry which over the last few months has already lost, to all intents and purposes, the whole of its distant-water operation. We are concerned to echo its fears that, if there is no change of mind and will on the part of those who now claim an almost unfettered right to fish in the North-East Atlantic, the fishing stocks in these waters may be virtually wiped out in a very few years.
We believe that long-established fishing communities in the country are entitled to expect that rapaciousness and indifference as to consequences will give place to prudence and proper concern.
Conservation is a word designed to delight the hearts of legislators and bureaucrats. It implies that one composes a policy which one then puts into legislative language—preferably incomprehensible—subjects it to some kind of lawmaking process and that is the problem solved. Conservation has been much discussed by many people and many nations. The North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission has been meeting for years. There has been widespread agreement. There have been rules governing such important subjects as the mesh of nets and the size of fish. But who observes these rules? Perhaps Britain, Norway and a few other countries.
I shall quote briefly from a letter from Sir Basil Parkes, who is well known for his association with the industry. He states:

Not only did our Government make it illegal to carry under-sized nets, and impose heavy fines if we did, but they also stopped us, the producers, from selling undersized fish, they stopped the merchant from buying it and further along the line, they make it illegal for the retailer to sell it to the public.
That gives a good summary of the British attitude to such regulations. However, one is tempted to ask—who else even knows the rules, let alone observes them?
I quote again from the same letter from Sir Basil, who recently went aboard a French trawler at Hull, acting as French Consular Agent. He said:
The Skipper complained that he did not know he was breaking any rules in fishing with herring net, according to the instructions issued to him by the Ministry. I took him up on this, and he produced some official papers dated 31st December 1976, which clearly stipulated that he was allowed to use a 50 mm. herring net so long as he landed at the end of his voyage, 20 per cent. of herring or mackerel. This of course is the complete reverse of what our regulations are. If we get permission to carry a herring or mackerel net, we have to be catching and land at the end of the trip at least 80 per cent. herring and /or mackerel, and we have to be catching that proportion during the voyage—otherwise we are not allowed to use that size net".
Who has even got the rules straight? There has been no lack of either rules or agreement, hence my position on these documents to which we are referring this afternoon. Good as their intentions may be, they will not get us any further forward. What has been lacking is restraint —restraint from over-fishing and restraint from methods such as beam trawling and industrial fishing with fine-mesh nets, which are destructive in that they leave behind them nothing on the seabed.
We joined the Community because we thought that it was right and in our interests so to do. We preferred it to isolation. We knew, and the present Government knew after their renegotiation, that some problems would remain to be solved. The Government have made much of the fact that the common fisheries policy was not settled, but their own failure to renegotiate that policy —they must be fair about it for once—is explainable only by the fact of their own reliance upon the specific undertakings given during the negotiations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). Undertakings were clearly given not that the Community would listen to our case but


that there would be a completely new look at the fisheries problem.
It would not be inappropriate if I were to quote from a speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham, who was very much involved in these negotiations, as recently as 17th June in the European Parliament. He said,
I did, however, Mr. President, make it plain on behalf of the British Government— and I am sure this is a matter upon which the House of Commons as a whole would be unanimous—that no future British Government could in practice be forced into arrangements which, in their judgment, failed to safeguard our vital fishing interests as they then defined them. Now I may say Mr. President there was no other issue in the whole of the negotiations to enlarge the Community on which I felt it necessary to make such a specific and firm declaration. Fisheries proved to be the most sensitive and the most difficult issue in the whole of the enlargement negotiations, and it was simply because the agricultural ministers made such a hash of the whole business.
For the moment, at any rate, I am entitled to say that it is the habit of agriculture Ministers to make a hash of the whole business. Whether I shall retain that view in the future is another matter.
We now have to hope that the Council of Ministers will pay due attention to the facts of the situation, to the arguments and to the undertakings that were given during negotiations but which seem to have been put rather under the carpet in recent times.
I accept that a treaty, having been signed, there are certain obligations following upon it, and the particular obligation with which we should all be concerned is to make the Community live and work. But that does not mean that we should not learn from experience or that we should not judge the declared intentions of member States as to conservation by what they have actually done in the past. We must ask which of the countries that now seek to fish our traditional grounds can point to a record in conservation that creates confidence that in practice they will not loot any new grounds which may become open to them. What possible reason have we to believe that those who have fished out their own waters will not do the same to ours, and quickly?
There must be two main pillars to any common fisheries policy. First, there must

be strict protection of the breeding grounds, some of which should, perhaps, be permanently closed. One of the documents before us today proposes that herring in the North Sea should be given a bit of a rest and a chance to recover. But one wonders how much reliance one can put upon what so far is only a paper proceeding.
The second pillar of any sensible policy is that methods of fishing must be restricted. Those methods that I have described as literally destructive of fish stocks should be banned. Those who use or countenance the use of such methods cannot expect to have their words as to conservation taken very seriously. Indeed, one hears very little from those sources as to how conservation and regulations governing it would be enforced.
We are told that catch quotas would be the main means of giving the policy some meaning, but to rely upon such measures would be to turn a blind eye to experience and to put our faith in a device which would be a nuisance to the few who observe the law and a joke to the many who do not.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a fishing debate in Strasbourg on Friday, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) admitted that when he signed the treaty he knew that adequate safeguards had not been taken by his Government in regard to the fisheries policy? Is it not just a little hypocritical that we should be expected to have to listen to this stuff coming after the event?

Mr. Peyton: I would not wish to cross swords with the hon. Lady when it comes to hypocrisy, but as her memory is not evidently very long, I should like to refer her to her own words—this is the first time that I have ever quoted her—as reported at column 283 of the proceedings on the same day:
May I echo my support for the sentiments expressed by Mr. Rippon?

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the statement by Mr. Rippon was extremely clear—[HON. MEMEERS: "Order."]—and thoroughly understood by all those in the European Parliament and, at the time, by Mrs. Ewing herself.

Mr. Peyton: I am glad to have——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is used to European practice, but here we refer to hon. Members by their constituency.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) has already persuaded me to give way to her once. I think that it would be kindly if I did not allow her a second opportunity.
I am much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) for confirming the impression that I gained from my right hon. and learned Friend's speech and for her recollections of the views that were then held —all of a week ago—by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn.
I think that we must acknowledge that it would be wrong for us to seek to disregard or overlook rights which have long been enjoyed by other nations, and particularly those which are our partners in the Community. But we, too, have historic rights, and it ill behoves those who claim to rely on theirs to deny ours, which are even more powerfully established.
It would also be wrong for us silently to accept the disaster which shortsightedness and greed could so easily bring about. I cannot see any alternative to making each country responsible for the management and policing of the waters nearest to its coastline. I share the view of the industry that a zone of 50 miles would be the best way of ensuring that conservation requirements were observed and due penalties exacted for their breach.
Great difficulties attend the settling of agreements with third countries, for those third countries are themselves anxious to know how far they can rely on undertakings given on behalf of not one nation but many. Experience so far does not encourage me to look for much progress from negotiations carried out by the Commission with third countries. The Community might do well to organise individual countries to negotiate on its behalf.
I come now to the most important question of all, that of enforcement,

which I have raised on a number of previous occasions with the right hon. Gentleman. I have always had the impression that he, too, takes a serious view of the problem. But the point one has to face here is that both the new extended areas of sea and the intensive methods of fishing now introduced have increased both the size and urgency of the problem.
I have no doubt that a Nimrod aeroplane is a very useful thing for many purposes, but I cannot help feeling that, when it comes to the enforcement of the fishing rules, it has certain limitations. It is somewhat remote. Reliance upon Nimrod is hardly likely to calm our fear —I quote again from Sir Basil Parkes— that
The fleets which are going to converge on the poor British grounds are so much in excess of what the grounds can produce, even if they adhere to the conservation measures, which they have never done up to now.
I believe that the Minister will probably agree with much that I have said, but what does he intend to do about it now? We shall certainly support him in his claim for a total re-examination, that re-examination to be made in the light of and in accordance with assurances repeatedly given to my right hon. Friends. I hope that the Minister will be fair enough to acknowledge that those assurances were given, otherwise he has no excuse at all for not having renegotiated the policy.
My second question to the Minister is: does he intend to go it alone, in the same way as he did with pigs? This would be a very serious matter for a man who has found himself in the courts once and has been defeated there.
Thirdly, what about enforcement? We no longer have a fisheries protection flotilla? Why not? Apparently it is because the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), when he was Prime Minister, decided that we could not afford such expensive luxuries. The position is that at a time of greater need we no longer have the use of eight vessels working full-time on fisheries protection. We have instead only the odd frigate from time to time and a few inshore vessels which are not fitted for operations in distant waters or in weather in which the big trawlers can quite safely operate.
As we see it, the Minister, because of the Government's policy on defence, lacks muscle to enforce any policy, whether it is agreed or otherwise with his colleagues. We also believe that, by his attitude in the Council of Ministers, the Minister has evaporated that good will upon which those who lack strength are obliged to rely.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) rose——

Mr. Peyton: The Minister rather prides himself on being tough, but he has gone so far on certain occasions as to give the impression that he equates the keeping of promises with surrender—a novel doctrine and not one likely to make him many friends. He burst into poetry the other day. He gave it to The Times for nothing. He appears to us to have given such offence to his colleagues and partners in Europe that they may not be minded to listen to his arguments, no matter how well founded. They may even be minded to forget undertakings given in the past to my right hon. Friends. We fear that his toughness will in the event be seen to be that of a paper tiger, since he and his colleagues have stripped down the means we once had of defending our legitimate interests.
It will be our intention to give our anxieties and fears expression in the Lobby tonight unless the Minister can give us some reasonable ground for thinking that they are without foundation, but they will need to be very strong and they will need to be much more convincing than anything he has previously said on this subject.

5.15 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): I am very glad that we are having this debate because, in addition to taking in the three EEC documents which have been circulated, we can, as the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has shown us, debate the common fisheries policy as a whole—and I am not afraid of doing so. But first, perhaps, I ought to deal with those EEC documents, and I hope that the House will bear with me if I deal with them a little more intensively perhaps than the right hon. Gentleman did.
Document R/1174/77 deals with conservation measures for herring and was discussed at the meeting of the EEC Council of Agriculture Ministers on 16th May, but was not adopted. As I told the House on 18th May, a temporary extension of the North Sea herring ban was agreed for the month of June, together with a similar temporary ban for the same period for the West of Scotland stock. Herring conservation measures as a whole will be discussed at the special Fisheries Council on 27th June, on the basis of this proposal or something very like it. Changes to it will be needed to take account of the latest scientific advice, but generally speaking we think that it is an acceptable basis for discussion.
Document R/1173/77 is a communication to the Council from the Commission, rather than a formal proposal for Community legislation, identifying what the Commission believes are the fundamental problems on which it feels that the debate within the Community should be concentrated. The Council has not yet discussed this document, but I have to say that it adds little to the Commission's previous ideas and certainly does not acknowledge the United Kingdom's special needs.
Document S/779/77 is a proposal by the Commission for licensing third country fishing boats in the waters of EEC member States after 30th June. Until then, licences for third country boats will be issued by United Kingdom Ministers in their role as President of the Community. This document proposes that the Commission should issue such licences after that date, a procedure for deciding how many licences to issue, and that licensed vessels should be required to report regularly when fishing within the limits of member States.
At present, only boats from the Soviet Union, Poland, East Germany, Portugal and Spain require a licence to fish, but the Commission's proposal provides for fishing by all third countries to be licensed. Licensing is a valuable contribution to controlling the fishing activities of third countries, and placing reporting requirements on licensed vessels should increase our knowledge of what licensed vessels are doing.
We welcome the basic purpose of these proposals, but there are aspects of them


which need to be considered further in the light of progress in the overall reappraisal of the common fisheries policy. The Foreign Ministers' Council therefore agreed on 21st June to continue the current arrangements for licensing by the Presidency for another three months. This will give time for us to ensure that the system proposed in S/779/77 is as effective as possible and does not prejudice member States' rights, when necessary, to introduce national measures to conserve fisheries.
But these proposals—ad hoc attempts to deal with piecemeal problems—merely demonstrate the need for a coherent fishing policy designed for a world of 200-mile limits and threatened fishing stocks. There are, after all, two basic essentials which are interlocked: first, conservation of fish and, secondly, conservation of the livelihoods of those who live by fishing. Unless we conserve fish, there will be none left and the livelihood not only of fishermen but of all those who live by fishing, including boat and dock builders and people employed in distribution and processing, would be at risk.

Mr. Hamish Watt: Does not the Minister agree that there would be adequate fishing for all the people he has just mentioned if only we could get our EEC partners to stop fishing for industrial purposes and allow the fish to grow to maturity so that they could be used for home consumption?

Mr. Silkin: I think I shall touch on that in chapter 4. Fishing is not only their livelihood; it is part of the nation's livelihood. In my visits to English ports I have seen overwhelming evidence of thise. My right hon. Friend the Secretaries of State responsible for other parts of the United Kingdom report the same problem. To appreciate these problems we have to understand the pattern of our fishing to-day, a pattern very different from that which existed before we entered the EEC.
With regard to pelagic fish—essentially herring, sprat and mackerel—there has been a serious decline in herring stocks, as we have all become aware. There has also been a greater utilisation of mackerel stocks since 1972. Pelagic catches of other countries around our shores have increased out of all recognition and in 1975 amounted to 750,000 tonnes in the

United Kingdom 200-mile zone. Conservation therefore becomes absolutely vital. The right hon. Member for Yeovil and the House are quite right.
It is quite possible that more than 200,000 tonnes of herring, on which our industry mainly depends, are still being taken by the herring fisheries, whereas the stocks in their present state can bear not much more than one-third of that. The picture for mackerel is similar although not quite so severe at present.
I turn to demersal fish—cod, haddock, plaice and sole. From the time of the Treaty of Accession, when we caught 760,000 tonnes, our catch has been reduced to about 600,000 tonnes, of which 130,000 tonnes comes from waters of non-EEC countries. The loss in value to the industry of distant-water fishing has been of the order of £80 million a year. But the demersal catch by other countries in our waters, under our sovereignty and jurisdiction up to the 200-mile limit, increased from 360,000 tonnes to about 470,000 tonnes, although nearly half of that was by non-EEC countries.
Of course, many of the problems with which we are faced would have existed had there been no common fisheries policy. It may be helpful to see what we could have done in the circumstances, and then perhaps we can make comparisons. If there were no common fisheries policy, we would have got notice of the extended limits of other countries—Iceland and so on. We would have had to offer reciprocal agreements where we could to those other countries. The end result would probably have been diminished fishing possibilities off Iceland, perhaps the Faroes and, to a lesser extent, Norway.
What would we have done in those circumstances. First, we would have had to utilise the fish around our shores to the best advantage by trading surplus fish in our waters—those fish which our consumers primarily do not want—with fish that we would want in the waters of other countries. Secondly, we would have had to phase out from our 200-mile limits those countries without reciprocal fishing benefits to offer. Thirdly, we would have had to control very tightly the fishing of those countries to which we have given the right to fish in our waters by limiting effort. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that catch quotas are not


enough and by themselves simply do not work. Fourthly, we would have had to subject all fishing in United Kingdom limits to a strict conservation policy.

Mr. Peyton: Will the Minister say whether the Government have any intention of reviving the fisheries protection flotilla? The more I look at this, the more inevitable I think it becomes.

Mr. Silkin: The question of enforcement and the policy connected with it are probably better left to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I have spoken to him about it. I do not want to delay the House too long in what is inevitably a bit of a tour d'horizon.

Mr. Peyton: Will the Minister use his persuasive powers on his right hon. Friend to make sure that he does answer the point?

Mr. Silkin: I do not have to use any persuasive powers. My right hon. Friend is the most reasonable man I know.
The fact is that we have to deal with the problems posed by the common fisheries policy. That is a policy which inevitably inhibits our freedom of action. It still remains true that within the common fisheries policy we must try to pursue, as far as possible, the same aims as we would have done without it.
On conservation, we have taken the lead in pressing for a coherent conservation policy to protect the fish stocks of member States. We have succeeded to a limited extent. The Council has adopted measures including a ban on fishing for Norway pout to protect immature white fish and various measures to protect herring stocks. But more needs to be done. I freely concede that.
Our aim is an effective and comprehensive Community conservation policy. But the whole House, as was shown by the unanimous acceptance of the principle of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) the other day, also accepts the importance of individual member States retaining the right to take national conservation measures within their own fishery limits, where member States see that need as urgent and it is not possible to reach Community agreement quickly.
Negotiations with third countries are still necessary though they are now conducted by the Commission on behalf of the Community. The result with regard to United Kingdom waters is that many countries—for example, Romania and Bulgaria—can no longer fish there, because in those cases there was no possibility of reciprocal arrangements, and that limitations have been imposed on fishing by several other countries—for example, Spain. This reduction of fishing effort by third countries will, of course, leave more fish for EEC fishermen.
Our own distant-water fishermen are themselves interested in the waters of third countries, particularly those round Norway, the USSR, Faroes and Iceland. The position on this is, first, that in the case of Norway negotiations are continuing and I have good hopes that an arrangement will be concluded allowing for continued fishing by United Kingdom fishermen in Norwegian waters, though at a somewhat reduced level.
Secondly, United Kingdom fishermen are still fishing at the Faroes but the negotiations are continuing and have proved very difficult. If the present Faroese restrictions on our fishing are not eased, we may have to reconsider the continuation of Faroese fishing in our waters.
Thirdly, the USSR has also extended her limits to 200 miles recently. Substantive negotiations on reciprocal quotas have not yet started.
We are still talking to the Icelanders, although I am not for one moment attempting to say other than that I do not wish to raise any false hopes about the outcome. There will continue to be some scope for fishing in distant waters, but it is clear that in future the great bulk of the catch of the United Kingdom industry must come from our own waters.
The vital point—this is where membership of the EEC affects us most—is what proportion of the stocks in these waters will be taken by fishermen from the different countries. It is a question of access. Membership—let us consider it carefully—means that we cannot treat EEC fishermen like those from third countries.
But the facts are that the fish in United Kingdom waters amount to nearly two-thirds of the total stocks in the waters


of member States, and that our fleet has suffered grave losses in terms of fishing opportunities elsewhere. In our view, these factors alone entitle United Kingdom fishermen to a very substantial proportion of the total catch. A division such as the Commission has proposed based on historic catches within 200-mile limits only is simply not good enough.
The real difficulty is that unless we secure the necessary changes in the common fisheries policy now—here we may go back to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)—we may be faced in 1982 with a system that will allow free fishing by all up to the beaches in all the waters of member States. That is the danger. And any change in this situation requires the unanimous agreement of the nine member States.
We consider that United Kingdom fishermen can obtain their fair share of the stocks only if the common fisheries policy is radically redesigned. In particular it should include provision for substantial areas around the United Kingdom coast in which they have exclusive or preferential access. The Commission itself recognises that changes are needed and has suggested a limited coastal belt and quotas covering all fishing by fishermen of the member States in their waters. Unfortunately, neither the belt nor the quotas are satisfactory.
For our part, over a year ago Her Majesty's Government proposed a variable coastal belt of up to 50 miles covering the most vital areas for the British industry. Our aims were—and remain—the conservation of the fish stocks within that belt and the satisfying of our own fishermen's requirements. Of course, I have always said that any surplus after these two basic conditions had been met would be available for our EEC partners, or as part of a trade-off with third countries upon a reciprocal basis in which we could share. As the House knows, up to now the variable belt proposal has met with fierce resistance in the EEC. However, that proposal remains on the table. We are ready to consider in the Council any alternative measure, provided always that it gives us these twin objectives of conservation and dominant preference.

Mr. John Lee: By my right hon. Friend's refer-

ence to the unanimity rule I understand that this is one of the instances in which the Government will be prepared to use their veto effectively if we do not get a satisfactory situation.

Mr. Silkin: The trouble is that it is the wrong way round. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present during the debates concerning the fishing industry, but exactly that point came up over and over again, as well I remember.

Mr. Lee: I anticipated my right hon. Friend's answer. If that is the case, what redress have we if we do not get our own way?

Mr. Silkin: The persuasive ability that the right hon. Member for Yeovil assured me that I have when he asked me to draw something to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The present EEC arrangements already regard the area within 12 miles as having a special status. Access to important parts of this zone is already in practice limited to coastal fishermen. In our view the whole of this zone should ultimately be reserved exclusively to fishermen of the coastal State, but we should obviously need suitable phase-out arrangements for the fishermen from the other member States who currently fish there. In time the entire catch—subject to conservation limits—within the 12-mile zone should be allocated to the coastal State.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman include the areas between six miles and 12 miles that in some portions of the United Kingdom were signed away by the Conservative Government?

Mr. Silkin: Certainly. The area between 12 miles and 50 miles will in future be of crucial importance to our industry if it is to be redeveloped for work in near and middle waters.
It is possible to catch around 150,000 tonnes of demersal fish and about 250,000 tonnes of pelagic fish within 12 miles of our coasts. The two must be considered separately since they are caught by different methods of fishing and demersal have about two and a half times the value of pelagic. The 12-mile exclusive zone would provide us with the bulk of our


traditional pelagic catch but only one-fifth of our traditional demersal catch, and even that would include a substantial tonnage of less familiar species.

Mr. James Johnson: Even with all these permutations and combinations, does my right hon. Friend think in his heart of hearts that it will be possible to reach a national total equal to the 900,000 tonnes that we have been catching for decades? Is it possible to do that?

Mr. Silkin: We must get the most viable state for our industry that we can. We might have met these difficulties, or some of them, but I am trying to show the greater difficulties that we now have to face.
The stocks out to 50 miles contain enough pelagic fish not only for our present needs but to cater for considerable future expansion. Some of the fishing concerns catching demersal fish will have to switch to pelagic. That is bound to be so. However, the total demersal catching to 50 miles is 500,000 tonnes. If we had sole access to all that it would not enable us to maintain the present size of our demersal industry, but a dominant priority there, together with a share of the fishing elsewhere, including the remainder of our waters up to 200 miles, would enable us to have a firm economic base on which we could rebuild the industry.
We must face the possibility that other member States, or some of them, despite all the arguments and the sweet reason that the right hon. Gentleman wants me to exercise, and which others may put forward, may not react constructively and may refuse to accept what we regard as the minimum changes necessary to the common fisheries policy. We shall have to face that situation, if it arises. I cannot claim that we shall have an easy ride.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: I think that we all recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is doing his best to obtain these objectives. However, he must face the possibility that we shall not be able to convince the other eight countries of the legitimate claims that all the parties in this House consider we have. Has the Minister contingency plans now for unilateral action in that event?

Mr. Silkin: I always start with the assumption that others—even the Opposition and the Scottish National Party— are essentially reasonable men. That is always the best basis from which to start. If one finds that they are not, the contingency plans have a way of organising themselves. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he has pointed out the difficulties that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman fairly assessed.
At the time of the Treaty of Accession our rights were all too quickly discarded. The result of that folly cannot be too quickly remedied. Negotiations will be difficult.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman cannot make that sort of comment without going on to say why he did not seek to make repairs during the renegotiation.

Mr. Silkin: I suppose that I should supply the right hon. Gentleman—modesty has heretofore prevented me from doing it—with an autobiography of what my attitude was to the whole thing at the time of the Treaty of Accession and also at the time of renegotiation.

Mr. Peter Mills: The House is entitled to know why, in the renegotiation, the Socialist Government did not make that point. If it was so vital, why did they not do it?

Mr. Silkin: I dare say that the House may be entitled to hear that. The House is also entitled to know that I have searched diligently, but I am afraid without success, for any speech or any utterance from the Opposition Front Bench in which they called for a renegotiation of the fish question.

Mr. Peyton: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to break with his usual practice and answer a question. If he is accusing the present Opposition of having failed to settle an acceptable fisheries policy during the original negotiations, why did not the Government of the day, when they came to renegotiate the accession, in the name of conscience repair the omission which they attribute to us?

Mr. Silkin: If it had been possible to do so, that is to my mind something which at the time should have been in the renegotiation package, but there were certain other factors. I have never


dissembled from the House my personal view. I am being asked what I personally thought about that whole renegotiation. All that I can say is that it does not lie in the mouths of the right hon. Member for Yeovil and his colleagues or cohorts to criticise that. They were only too glad to see that the renegotiation was a success. [Interruption.] I searched for a speech of any sort on fishing that the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) had made at that time.
One thing is clear, despite the difficulties of the negotiations. Sound and comprehensive arrangements, at least for conservation, are absolutely essential. The introduction of proper conservation measures for United Kingdom waters cannot be postponed. That is our policy and I have tried to tell the House exactly how we propose to deal with matters at the Council meeting on 27th June and in the event of any lack of a constructive agreement or understanding with our partners.
Let no one here or abroad get the impression that because we are reasonable we are prepared to surrender the needs and rights of our fishermen. We understand the problems of other nations, but they must be prepared to understand ours. If they do not, the result will be to harden, not to soften, our resolve. We shall be guided by one overriding objective. Every member of the Community has some interest, but not every member of the Community has a vital interest, in conservation. Not every member of the Community has a fishing industry of such national importance as we have. We are determined to preserve both our industry and our stocks, so that a stable and prosperous future may be assured.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am glad to be called to follow the lucid speech of the Minister of Agriculture, but I must say at the outset that this whole debate is overhung by an atmosphere of unrealism and hypocrisy. This is a Supply Day. This is a day on which Her Majesty's Opposition are entitled to choose not only the subject but the weapons, and we listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to see what it is that Her Majesty's Opposition on behalf of the country wished to attain or at any rate to assist

by utilising the opportunity which our parliamentary system gives them.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it was essential that each country in the Community should be responsible for management, control and enforcement within a zone of 50 miles from their respective coasts. I regard that as rather less than the minimum which is requisite as a satisfactory fisheries policy for this country; but at any rate it is an uncontestable statement, on the basis of experience, of what this country needs.
Now, there was nothing whatsoever to prevent Her Majesty's Opposition from putting a motion at any rate to that effect upon the Order Paper— "that in the opinion of this House the interests of the fishing industry of this country and of the nation require the exclusive management, control and enforcement of conservation measures within a 50-mile zone around the coasts of the United Kingdom". If they had put that motion on the Order Paper I wonder whether there is any hon. Member who would have gone into the Lobby against it. I doubt it. It is evident from the speech of the Minister that he would have encouraged and supported those who wished to affirm such a proposition.
Therefore, the Opposition had the power, by the simple process of tabling a motion which enshrined part at any rate of what they have told us today they consider to be necessary and desirable, to secure the affirmation of that proposition by this House of Commons, to make it part of the policy of this country, and to add that reinforcement to the work of the Minister in the European Economic Community.
Instead of that, we are to divide tonight, some of us, upon the proposition that the House should, rather than should not, adjourn—that is to say, whether we should or should not wipe out the subsequent debate upon EEC matters. The Opposition have thus deliberately renounced the opportunity to make good their words. Anxious as they have shown themselves this afternoon to rebut the suggestion that they were in any way delinquent in 1972, 1974 or 1975, they could have hauled some of their delinquency back by saying, "At any rate there is our resolution, that is what we put before the House, not merely in the speech of the right hon. Member for


Yeovil but on the Order Paper: let the House vote one way or the other. This is where the Official Opposition stand."
But not a bit of it. They have used their control over the procedure this afternoon to prevent this House—the motion is not amendable, or someone would have amended it—from asserting its will, even from defining its will, within the European Economic Community. It is just one example of the preference for the development of the Community and its supra-national character over national interests, over—we dare use the word nowadays—national sovereignty, which has unfortunately characterised the whole policy and behaviour of the Opposition.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman at least be fair enough to admit that if it were not for the Opposition the fishing issue would not be discussed at all before Monday's meeting? All our appeals to the Government for a full day's debate on this matter have been rejected time and time again.

Mr. Powell: We had a good deal of discussion on fisheries when this House passed a Bill introduced by the Minister to create what he referred to this afternoon as "Our waters—waters under our sovereignty and jurisdiction." Five minutes of that debate was worth many hours of talk without a motion on the Order Paper. But if we are short of time for discussion of fishery matters, it is all the more important to crystallise our conclusions and make it clear to the Government and the world where the balance of opinion in this country lies and what our determination is.
Now these waters which are "our own, and under our jurisdiction and sovereignty"—does the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) seriously think that for our access to those waters, for the conservation of the resources of those waters and for our national requirements we can r0eally rely, and still less that we should be "obliged to rely"—the right hon. Member's words—upon the mere "good will" of the other members of the Community? Conservative Members are remarkably innocent if that is what they understand about this Europe that we have entered. Are they suggesting that we should rely for our access to and con-

servation of waters containing 65 per cent, of total stocks upon the very people who have hitherto pillaged and looted them?

Mr. Peyton: I have never known the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) be almost intentionally as unfair as he is being now. He has misquoted me completely. My point was quite clear. The present Government have stripped this country of the ability to protect our fishermen and our fishing in that we no longer have a fisheries protection flotilla. I made that absolutely clear. I went on to say that we thought that the Minister was lacking muscle, and therefore was forced to rely on a degree of good will that he had dissipated.

Mr. Powell: It would indeed be advantageous in this respect—and here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—if we could have a separate debate and full investigation upon the present effectiveness of our fishery protection measures and what is still required. All I will say is that those of us who were most anxious about this six months ago have been partially reassured by the success with which at least the flagrant breaches of our controls and our law are being apprehended and dealt with, I am not claiming by any means that this has been sufficient; but it has been more than some of us were inclined to fear, recalling the debates last December.
However, I am talking about securing our rights and a common fisheries policy which meets our national needs; and it was in that context that the right hon. Gentleman alleged that we were "obliged to rely on good will". Before I sit down— and I intend to make a very brief speech —I shall indicate certain weapons—other than good will, which one should always presume until it is found to be absent— upon which we can rely.
We are fortunate to be able to have this debate on the same day as the publication of the White Fish Authority's annual report and accounts; and it is right to put on the record of the House the view of this whole matter which appears in the Authority's report, namely that
the treatment of fish as a common resource of the EEC was essentially an unsound conception",
and it is
curious that fish, alone amongst Community resources, on land or in the sea, was to be treated in this way".


That is a conclusion to which most hon. Members have come or are coming, if they would only admit it.
The report continues:
Like the industries of the two countries
—and a 50-mile exclusive zone is the demand of the British fishing industry—
the British and Irish Governments are persuaded"—
we heard this from the Minister this afternoon—
that effective conservation depends on a wide area of water under the exclusive control of the coastal state.
It is that determination which, despite the fact that we cannot record it tonight, should issue from this debate today, and because it is expressed by the actions of the Government and not by the determination of the Opposition to prevent this House from arriving at a conclusion and decision, my hon. Friends and I will have no part in the pantomime at 10 o'clock of pretending that we are doing something for the fishing industry by voting on the motion for the Adjournment.
The Government have indicated their conclusion on the present state of the negotiations on the common fisheries policy in the explanatory note to R/1173/77, where they say:
While the review so far is welcome, there is still no recognition on the part of the Commission of the United Kingdom's requirement that the re-allocation of Community resources should be on the basis of Member States' contributions to those resources and of the losses sustained by Member States' fishing industries in distant waters.
If it were up to me to put a motion on the Order Paper those words would have been included in it and reaffirmed by the House tonight.
In these negotiations with the Commission we are in an immensely strong position. We are in the strong position of being the possessors in international law of the majority of the fishing resources of the Community—approximately two-thirds was the estimate mentioned by the Minister this afternoon. We are entitled and able to say that in this matter, where we are discussing our own territorial and sovereign waters, it remains ultimately in our power and discretion what arrangements we make, within the Community or outside it, for access to these waters and for the conditions to be fulfilled if the access is allowed, conditions of conserva-

tion no different from those that we shall impose upon our own fishermen; and may I say that my own fishermen in Mourne are as keen as possible upon scrupulous observation of the domestic law laid down for the preservation of fishery resources?

Mr. James Kilfedder: Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North) indicated assent.

Mr. Powell: I see that I have the assent of my colleague in the representation of County Down.
It would be useless for the Community to turn round and say to us "Yes, but you are effectively our prisoners. You are dependent upon us for benefits with which you cannot dispense; so, like it or not, you must toe the fishery line that we choose to prescribe." That is not so. We are net contributors financially to the EEC, not net recipients. So the Community cannot say that it will cut us off without a penny, because it is the other way round—as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) was explaining in another context.
Nor could the Community say "If we restrict our trade with you and refuse you free trade in industrial products, you will be in a difficult position." On the contrary, it is the Community which enjoys the benefit of an uncompensated surplus on the trading balance of payments in industrial products; so what it would cut off in that case would be its own nose.
The Community also cannot say "either toe the line or else you shall starve". The threat would be "Toe the line, or you will be forced to buy what food you require from the best and most reliable markets in the world. You shall have your food more cheaply." What a terrible menace.
That, then, is the powerful negotiating position we have in the EEC. The matter is within our control. Nobody wishes to place on the right hon. Gentleman or on the Government prescriptions as to the modalities by which they will secure these results. It is the results themselves which we demand. Those results have to be secured, because they can be secured, as I have demonstrated, and because they are essential to the well-being of one of our great industries.
I believe that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has so far deserved well of this country and, whatever else is said, even if we go on after the hour for the Adjournment at 10 o'clock, he should be encouraged to persevere as he is doing and to exploit the invincible bargaining power which this country possesses.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: There is no doubt that there are strong storm clouds gathering on the horizon which threaten the future of our fishing industry. We spend almost all of our time in these fishery debates simply reflecting the anxieties of our constituents who are producers, marketers and, just as important, consumers of fish. Therefore, I believe that it is worth while putting on record a small optimistic note for the fishing industry.
In the annual report and accounts of the White Fish Authority, published today, it is worth recording that, despite difficult circumstances, which are acknowledged, large sections of the fishing industry on the catching side have had a prosperous year. Total British landings of white fish rose by over 10 per cent, compared with those in 1975, reaching 750,000 tonnes. The value rose proportionately very much more, from £126 million to a figure in excess of £175 million. Including shellfish, weight was up by 11 per cent, to 841,000 tonnes, and value went up by 41 per cent.—which is a significant figure—from £140 million to virtually £200 million. It is worth recording, therefore, that the fishing industry has had some success both in catch and value terms.
Even if we take inflation into account we must conclude that the industry has had a much more prosperous year than it had in 1975. Bearing in mind the dire and grave warnings about the fact that the fleet was unlikely to be viable and that the industry faced total catastrophe, the turn-round from expectations of disaster to an improvement amounting to 41 per cent, in value is very worth recording.
Many take the view that uncertainty created by lack of confidence is not doing the industry any good. That lack of confidence is reflected in the fact that in the last year there has not been a single grant

in respect of applications for vessels of over 83 feet in length. If the fleet is not replaced the potential catch in the industry will be affected.
This matter is of great interest to me because, unless vessels are kept up, it will prejudice the safety of those who go to sea. We do not want to see those men taking to the sea in ships which are growing old and have maintenance difficulties. It is also worth recalling the increase in the number of applications for improvements in boats—an aspect which should be borne in mind.
I echo what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said as to the stand we should take on fisheries policy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not mind if I underline what he said, because these matters must be repeated time and again so that these points are driven home. I shall quote from the official document produced by the White Fish Authority. Sometimes when hon. Members make points about the importance of a common fisheries policy, the approach of people outside the House is that we are anti-EEC politicians churning out the same old dirge, but that is not the case. Even those who are pro-EEC would accept that damage has been inflicted on our industry by the EEC common fisheries policy. Even those who are fairly neutral and on neither one side nor the other of the argument accept that that is the case.
On page 3 of the Authority's Report we see the following comment:
In last year's report we remarked that the treatment of fish as a common resource was an essentially unsound conception, and we might have added that it was curious that fish, alone amongst Community resources on land or in the sea, was to be treated in this way.
The report goes on to point out that the British and Irish Governments have taken certain steps towards conservation and so on, and it continues:
Even more depressing has been the tendency amongst them"—
referring to our EEC partners—
to disregard scientific advice in matters of conservation in a manner that represents no improvement on experience in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission.
The point stressed in every debate in the House on fisheries policy is summed up in this sentence of the report:
Until disagreement about the common fisheries policy can be resolved, all else hangs


fire. Effective conservation by quotas and by effort limitation cannot in practice by prescribed and enforced. It is impracticable to discuss restructuring of the fleets. Arrangements with third-party countries have become more difficult to formulate.
Every single aspect of domestic fishing policy is affected or held back or is incapable of solution or rational discussion till we can resolve the CFP. Unless we can persuade our EEC partners—and here I strike a less optimistic note—of the gross denial of British rights by regarding fish as a common resource, we shall never secure proper agreement. That conception is basic to our thinking.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who, unhappily, has departed from the Chamber, said that the Minister of Agriculture had upset our Community partners by his aggressive defence of British rights, not only about fishing but also about agricultural policy. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Minister was prepared to go it alone on the pigmeat subsidy, on which subsequently we were taken to the European court. When that policy was being discussed I do not remember the right hon. Member for Yeovil throwing his weight against the Minister for taking unilateral action. I thought on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman felt that the Minister had gone that far. Obviously the right hon. Gentleman is treating each debate on its merits —and the merits of his speeches become fewer as each debate succeeds.
For the first time in all our fishery debates the right hon. Member for Yeovil was driven to defending the previous Conservative Administration's decision to go into Europe and to accept the CFP. It was the first time that he tried to produce an answer, and all that he could produce in evidence was a speech that had been made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) in which an assurance had been given. That was a pretty pathetic defence, because, accepting that we are now in a strong position, we in the North-West were put in a poor legalistic negotiating position, and the greatest damage that was done to us by agreeing to the CFC was the removal of our veto. If we try to debate any agreement we just reinforced the kind of thing that we are trying to avoid. It is the removal of the veto powers in negotiation that has been so damaging.
Many hard things have been said about the Government for not properly negotiating the CFP. I am willing to accept that much of that is true, but I must say in defence of the Minister of Agriculture that he at least made his disagreement known and campaigned to keep us out of the EEC during the referendum debate. At least he has an honourable position. Perhaps I am sticking my neck out, but it may be that some of the fishermen who are so hard on the Government and those people who are trying to do their best should reflect on how many of them voted against staying in the EEC.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I have good contacts with the fishing industry, and, as far as I am aware, most of the fishermen were against the EEC from the beginning. In my constituency, which was the only one that voted against remaining in the EEC, all the fishermen known to me were totally opposed to the Common Market.

Mr. Hughes: I am glad that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has anticipated my point.
It may be that the majority of fishermen were against the EEC from the beginning, but if one checks the record it shows that most of them did not vote the way that they said. In private conversation a number of them have said that they either voted to stay in or abstained. Fortunately, the figures show that the majority of people voted in favour of staying in. I am tempted these days to put an advertisement in the missing persons column of a newspaper to find out where they are, because I cannot find people who will admit that they voted to stay in. I see the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) signifying that he did, but we already know that he did.

Mr. James Johnson: We are all agreed here, and that is a happy position. The people who were in favour of the EEC were distant-water fishermen, because that is a much more capitalised industry, but the inshore fishermen were always against it, not our people in Hull or Fleetwood.

Mr. Hughes: We can now let confession time go past. Our position is much stronger than appears on paper, as the


Minister said in his powerful speech. We are in a position to go it alone. One of the things that makes me more optimistic about our going it alone—unless I am now about to expose myself for not having read the most up-to-date news—is the position of Eire in Europe which is still hanging fire. One of the interesting things is that while Britain was taken to court over the pig subsidy and immediately rebuked, that did not happen in relation to the 50-mile limit of Eire. Eire was allowed to continue with the existing limit while the case went to proof, and that is still the position. The fact that there was not an immediate direction to the Eire Government to change that policy gives me hope that perhaps Eire's view will be recognised. That would have an immense impact on our position.
The Minister would not respond to the question about whether he had contingency plans for going it alone and he said that people should be assumed to be reasonable till proved otherwise. Of course, no one can reveal contingency plans before going into negotiations. We are in total agreement in demanding of the Commission and our partners that our special needs should be taken into account. The whole House should whole-heartedly agree on that.
On reflection, I hope that the Opposition will divide the House. I am sure that the Opposition do not want the motion to be carried, because if it were they would have their farming constituents on their necks. There would be no great enthusiasm even if the Opposition did decide to divide the House.
The Minister gave one of the best comprehensive reviews of the Government's approach to fishing that we have ever had. The matter of the CFP must be resolved or we cannot go any further. However, many of us have argued for a long time that it is not simply a matter of renegotiation and dealing with catch quota and limitations. Much more must be discussed.
There is the matter of what we should do about the size of the fishing fleet. A point that I noticed in the report of the White Fish Authority was that the Scottish inshore fleet was declining and that has started happening comparatively recently. It may be that the fleet must be

stabilised, and that it must decline if conservation fails to keep stocks up. However, we should be worried, and we should be considering the size of the fleet and the kind of fleet that we want.
Aberdeen fishermen are worried about decasualisation in the middle- and deepwater fleet, but we cannot discuss that because we do not know how many men will be employed in the industry. There is a lot at stake. We must consider what will happen to consumer prices, because people are starting to resist buying fish.
As long as the Minister stands up for the rights of British fishermen in the way that he has in the past he will have our wholehearted support and one hopes that he will have the wholehearted support of the Opposition.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) talked about persuading our Common Market partners of the lightness of our case. I do not think that there is much to be gained from that exercise. We need the more robust approach of the Minister of Agriculture. We should simply say that these are our decisions on fisheries and fishing grounds and that we believe that any objective fair outsider would agree that we have a good case. We should tell the Common Market that we shall not have fisheries carved up in the way that it has proposed.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and his strictures on the Tory Party. In view of their record it is hard-necked indeed for the Tories to put down such a motion. We said at various times during the negotiations before entering the EEC that the livelihood and future of inshore fishermen should be protected in the negotiations, but we found repeatedly that that aspect counted in but a minor way, if at all, with the negotiators of that day. The same demands were made of the Labour Government when it was their turn to renegotiate and I recall pointing out to the then Prime Minister that they did not even have the fishing industry on the agenda of matters to be discussed.
The crisis in the fishing industry has been developing for about 20 years. It was predictable and avoidable, and was precipitated by Governments who assumed that the resources of the sea


were inexhaustible and could be plundered indiscriminately. This was compounded by the growth, particularly among continental fishermen, of industrial fishing, with small-mesh nets and trawls, in the spawning grounds. A high proportion of the product of this fishing was for reduction to cattle food. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) mentioned in a fisheries debate some months ago the case of the Shetland vessel "Langdale" fishing for pout. One-sixth of its catch of Norwegian pout was industrial fishing. The rest could have had a commercial value.
The EEC suggests reliance on a system of quotas as a method of conservation, but experience has shown that when quotas are intended to operate there is massive cheating. Scottish fishermen regard quota systems as unenforceable.
The Scottish position is different from that in England. Last year we had about 1,000 inshore vessels based in dozens of small communities around the coast. If stocks are not protected up to 100,000 jobs in fishing and ancillary industries will be lost. My party believes that British negotiators have not been tough enough—although we pay tribute to what the Minister is doing.
If the EEC will not accept an exclusive 50-mile zone there should be a unilateral decision by the Government to declare a 50-mile limit. The Common Market had no fisheries policy until it appeared that the British application was about to be approved. Common Market countries have no fishing grounds to put into the negotiations. With a 20-mile limit, the United Kingdom has 56 per cent, of the EEC's territorial waters, Belgium has 1 per cent., Denmark 5 per cent., France 5 per cent., Germany 2 per cent., Ireland 27 per cent, and the Netherlands 4 per cent. United Kingdom and Eire together have 83 per cent, of the waters, and, with a bilateral declaration, would have the greater part of the waters concerned.
The other countries of the Common Market are waiting for a carve-up. There is plenty of propaganda from the EEC about fisheries. No doubt, most hon. Members have received a copy of the magazine "Facts". It examines what the EEC calls fisheries' facts and myths. It says that one myth is that foreigners will come into "our" waters and take "our"

fish. The word "our" is put into quotes as if to imply that they are not really our waters at all.
The magazine states as a fact that Eastern European countries are among the worst offenders in industrial fishing. No one would quarrel with that, but the worst offenders of all are the Danes, who are allegedly one of our Common Market partners.
The magazine also claims that young herrings originate off the Dutch coast. I have heard many discussions about where herrings originate, but I have never heard that suggestion. I should like to know what evidence the EEC has for that claim. The magazine says that the Dutch could catch these fish if they wanted to. They catch them now anyway. What the magazine claims as fact is actually myth and what it claims as myth is really fact.
I turn to a constituency point, namely, the herring ban in the North Sea. The Dutch have a concession of 1,500 tonnes for their Matje season. They made their case, and it would be a pity to deprive them. There are in my constituency two vessels that fish only for herring by drift net, and I ask that a similar concession should be granted to them. I had a letter recently from the Scottish Undersecretary turning down my request. There are people in my constituency who eat herring five days a week during the summer, and salt it in autumn for the following spring and summer. The ban is a great privation for them. I hope that the Minister will investigate this point in negotiations, and urge an exemption for these vessels. The other vessels in the fleet have no objection. If the Community cannot make such a concession, it is even more inhuman and bureaucratic than I think.
The Tory Party did not protect fisheries at the right time, and the Labour Party did not do so when it had the opportunity. Both are culpable in the eyes of Scottish fishermen. It was a bit thick for the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to accuse the Minister of lacking muscle. In the eyes of Scottish fishermen the Minister is the most likely looking Samson from either party for many a day. We welcome the robust stand he has taken, and hope that he will be successful in the negotiations on behalf of our fishermen.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: A debate on fisheries has an air of unreality, because we are but pale reflections of the daily preoccupations of the industry, and because the audience for the debate is not here. Just as Aneurin Bevan found, in his pursuit of power, when he reached his local council, power was not there, when he reached Westminster, it was not there; and when he reached the Cabinet, it was not there: so the fishermen who sailed up the Thames on a protest demonstration recently would have found, if they had reached the House, the power is not here either. The power in this vital matter rests with the Commission and the Common Market.
Our preoccupation, therefore, is to voice the needs of the industry, to provide support for the efforts that the Minister is making in the Common Market, and to provide more power to his elbow and steel to his backbone by pressing unitedly the needs of the industry. We can do no less than that, because the fishing industry has never had in national priorities its place to which it is entitled by the employment it provides, the imports it saves and the way of life it sustains.
What are the needs of the industry? The most immediate need is for an early decision on its future. At present, the whole industry stands deadlocked. The distant water side is no more than ticking over because of the exclusion from Iceland and the curtailment of the effort in Norway and other grounds. Nothing can be done to remedy that situation or to reorganise the industry till these vital decisions are taken.
We have to decide where the main fishing effort will now lie, what size of vessel should be used, what sort of equipment will be necessary, what scale of Government support will be forthcoming, which waters will be fished, and what scale of effort will be made there. All these vital decisions have not been taken. Till they are they hold up the investment and re-equipment that the industry so vitally needs.
Another important decision concerns our exclusive waters. The industry, asked, first, for an exclusive zone of 100 miles, and then retreated—wrongly in my

opinion—to a demand for an exclusive zone of 50 miles. I should think that all hon. Members will be in favour of a 50-mile exclusive zone for British fishermen, and hopes have risen monthly that a change in the common fisheries policy might be secured in negotiations.
Like the children's serials at the Saturday afternoon picture show, we thought every month that the climax would come —that Gundelach would be pinned to the rails by the express train racing for the 50-mile limit—but every month the negotiations have been deadlocked and the decision has been postponed. Every month the decision is not taken. This is because delay seems to suit everybody but this country. Delay particularly suits those nations, our Common Market partners, which are looting and pillaging the fishing grounds of this country while no decision is taken on the future of the common fisheries policy.
We are united in this House in saying that the kind of common fisheries policy that the Common Market wants is not a practical, viable proposition, that conservation measures can never be carried out in this common fashion. This is because a nation is the best guarantor of its own vital interests. And conservation of fish stocks is a vital interest to us. We know that any quota system soon becomes a mock auction as the total is bidded up beyond what is acceptable for conservation. We know that the Commission has no adequate way of policing a common fisheries policy because it has not got the expert staff and cannot even get its own proposals through the Council. We know that the proposals made so far show no recognition of our contribution to the Common Market pool, which is of the order of 60 per cent. Two-thirds of the fish stocks of the Community area are ours. There has been no recognition of that in allocating the quotas.
I recognise the Government's problems and I recognise that the pass has been sold in the lemming-like rush to Europe. I recognise, too, that we are now united, the industry is united, in demanding a 50-mile exclusive zone, but it is not just a matter of demanding a 50-mile zone. That is easy. The real question is what should be done if the negotiations for a common fisheries policy to give us a 50-mile exclusive zone break down and we do not get that. We can and must assume


good will initially, but the test is, what should be done if the negotiations fail?
I should be interested to hear from the Opposition what their commitment is if these negotiations fail. What are they prepared to do, what stand are they prepared to take, if we do not get the 50-mile exclusive zone? Are they prepared to say that if we do not get it through negotiation we should take what is, after all, our right, that we should take it by regulation, that we should take it in three stages, the first stage being exclusion from the 50-mile zone of the fishing fleets of third parties except where reciprocal rights can be agreed; the second stage being the ending of industrial fishing in the 50-mile zone; and the third stage being the exclusion of our Common Market partners? I recognise why they will not give us a commitment. They cannot give us a commitment because of the problems it will provoke with the Common Market. Are they prepared to say that we should take the 50-mile limit if we do not get it through negotiations?
The third need of the industry is one that becomes immediate because of the unanimity within the industry produced by the common fisheries policy. Traditionally it is an industry which has been divided into different sections with different interests. The interest of the merchants, who want to get fish coming through, is different from that of the catchers, because the merchants will take fish no matter where it comes from, even Icelandic catches, as is the case in my constituency, Grimsby. And the interests of the inshore fishermen are different from those of the distant-water fishermen. All this has prevented them from speaking until now with a common voice, but the present situation has produced a united industry, and the industry must now seize the opportunity to put its own house in order by creating a united pressure group. We, too, should seize the opportunity by creating for that industry some kind of development council, a NEDC for fishing, which can plot strategies, plan investment, forecast demand and channel investments into the areas and ports where it is vitally necessary. I should like to see this trend towards unity completed by the creation of a ministry of fisheries to put the demands of the industry to the Government.
In conclusion, I urge my hon. Friends to recognise that this is not just another industry. I urge them to recognise that this is not a party political issue, that this is not even one of those negotiating counters which are pushed forward and pulled back and eventually possibly lost in the protracted negotiations with the Common Market. This is a vital national interest, an industry which is threatened in a way it has never been before, and which, I hope, the whole House will support by backing the kind of efforts that the Minister is making in Europe, and saying to Europe both that the 50-mile exclusive zone is essential for the British industry and that this is a need from which this House will not retreat.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I think that speakers from all sections of the House who have contributed to today's debate, or indeed, will speak later, agree that the present situation of the common fisheries policy as it affects our own United Kingdom fishing industry is totally unsatisfactory. This policy was, after all, hastily conceived in 1970. It took no account whatsoever of the subsequent enlargement of the membership through the membership of the Republic of Ireland, and of Denmark, as well as ourselves—three countries which together produce over 80 per cent, of the total fish catch of the EEC.
I believe that no useful purpose whatsoever is served on these occasions by merely mounting a sterile argument— indeed, a sterile battle—over which party when in office was the one most responsible for this present unsatisfactory situation. It is no good hon. Members from the Scottish National Bench talking to me about this. In January 1971, the first occasion on which this House had a debate on the negotiations then taking place in respect of the United Kingdom's possible entry into the EEC, it so happened that I made my maiden speech, and on that occasion, during the course of two days, only two hon. Members mentioned the problem of inshore fishing. So both parties are indeed responsible, and I believe that absolutely no purpose is served by just dragging up these sterile arguments.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: They are not sterile.

Mr. Hicks: Furthermore, there is no doubt in my mind that the principal purpose of the kind of debate we are having today is to impress upon both our European partners and the Government the concern of this House for our own United Kingdom fishing industry, in particular in regard to the present proposals to find acceptable solutions for the Community's common fisheries policy problems.
We have had a series of proposals emanating from either the Commission or the Council of Ministers since the formulation of the common fisheries policy and most of us agree that all fall short of what we consider to be necessary for our United Kingdom fishing industry. After all, during the course of the last year or so we have, on the one hand, lost major fishing grounds traditionally used by our deep-sea fleet, and, on the other, more recently, with the extension of the territorial limit to 200-miles, found ourselves in the situation of the United Kingdom providing over 60 per cent. of the fishing waters of that enlarged area. Therefore we believe that we have a special requirement, which has not been met hitherto by any of the proposals that have emanated from Brussels.
Members of this House who take an interest in fishing matters will welcome in general terms the approach to a system of community licensing for all vessels from non-EEC countries and the move towards the adoption of more effective conservation and management of resources. In no way do these add up to the ultimate requirements if we are to sustain a meaningful United Kingdom fishing industry.
I sense that I shall, perhaps, be the only contributor to the debates from the southern part of the United Kingdom, particularly the West Country, but I make no apology for concentrating on the difficulties facing our West Country inshore fishing industry. We have faced a traumatic experience in the past two years or so, largely as a result of the overfishing of mackerel.
This was highlighted only yesterday in evidence given to the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee by the Ministry's own Director of Fishery Research. He is reported as having said that mackerel catches off Cornwall in 1975 and 1976 had been about 500,000 tonnes in each year and that

about 100,000 tonnes of that was caught by United Kingdom fishing vessels. Scientists of the International Council for Exploration of the Sea have recommended a total catch of 240,000 tonnes of mackerel per year. In other words, for the past two years, mackerel have been fished at double the advised rate. In Cornish coastal waters 400,000 tonnes have been taken by non-United Kingdom vessels. Of this total, approximately 200,000 tonnes were taken by fishing vessels of the Soviet Union.
I appreciate that the exclusion of some foreign fleets from these waters and the licensing of a limited number of others should, in theory, lighten the pressure on mackerel stocks off the South-West Coast of England. However, I urge on the Government the fact that there is still widespread apprehension felt by all sections of the inshore fishing industry.
We have seen this situation in the past. Older fishermen remember that herring were very common in West Country coastal waters, but this is no longer so. There was also a time when pilchards were plentiful, but they declined, too. The inshore fishermen justifiably fear that the same thing will happen with mackerel because of overfishing.
Although the overfishing has been largely caused by vessels from third countries—non-EEC countries—in the past two years the problem has been accentuated by a limited number of large vessels from Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. The reasons are clear for all to see. Our exclusion from the traditional distant waters has put pressure on the middle waters, and those boats which traditionally fished the middle waters have been obliged to come to the United Kingdom coastal waters.
In the past there has been a good supply of mackerel, but the key question is, how long can these shoals last? This is causing grave concern to local fishermen. Indeed, it is a reflection of the fundamental problem confronting the fishing industry, namely, that our national catching capacity exceeds the availability of markets.
Hon. Members and the various sections of the fishing industry have different ideas about how to solve the problem. In the South-West I believe that, in the short term, particularly with regard to mackerel,


we can solve the problem unilaterally and legally without offending any of our EEC colleagues. The solution lies in the introduction of firm methods of conservation, involving the size of boats, net meshes and so on. This applies primarily to coastal waters where, apart from France and Belgium which have limited historic rights, we have exclusive control at present.
We must also take into account the international situation in respect of the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy, which is causing great concern to our inshore fishermen. We are vulnerable because we are just across the English Channel from our European partners.
Cornwall is a development area, which implies a high level of unemployment and a shortage of suitable alternative occupations. It is an area where incomes are 12 per cent. below the national average. About 200 boats regularly fish from Cornwall, providing direct employment for 1,000 people. This may not sound many when compared with figures for other parts of the United Kingdom, but, in the context of the local and sub-regional economy, all these jobs are very significant. The jobs are also associated with other economic activities, the obvious ones being the freezing, packing, selling and transportation of fish.
The industry also has an integral link with the tourist industry. Why do people come to places like Looe and Polperro in Cornwall? One reason is that they are extremely picturesque parts of the world. Another reason is that the villages are still alive. They are not dominated by the second homes of absentee owners who come only for the odd weekend. There is a live fishing community in those areas. People come there to see the fishing industry, to take an interest in it, to watch the fishermen. Tourism and fishing are intimately connected.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a bit pointless to cry over spilt milk when the milk was spilt by the Tory Party—his party which took us into the Common Market? I know that some people would like to forget that the Tory Party led us into this situation. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the town of

Lossiemouth in my constituency will be a ghost town if we do not obtain a 50-mile exclusive zone. I sympathise with the social point that he made, but it is no good crying over milk spilt by his own party.

Mr. Hicks: I thought that I had made my point clear in my opening remarks. I mentioned this matter in the debate in January 1971.

Mr. Beith: Some of us have often done so.

Mr. Hicks: I did not hear anything said at that time on this subject by the Liberal Party. The Liberal spokesman who followed me on that occasion was the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). I remember it exactly. Furthermore, I see no point in going over all this ground, because both major parties bear part of the responsibility. Members of the Labour Party may say that the Conservatives were not strong enough in the original negotiations between 1970 and 1972. Members of the Conservative Party may say that the present Government were not firm enough in the renegotiations of 1975. Like all minority parties, which can afford to be all things to all people at all times, Liberals can only take credit for always pointing out blame but never having any responsibility.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is more difficult to have a renegotiation than to have a negotiation in the first place? A negotiation starts from strength, whereas renegotiation starts from a subordinate position. The test is not which side was right in 1972 or in 1975. The ultimate test is which side is prepared to take a stand for the rights of this country and this country's fishermen if the common fisheries policy cannot be changed in a way favourable to our case.

Mr. Hicks: In defence of my Government, in 1972 the 10-year interim agreement was negotiated. It gave us the base, I would have thought, for the renegotiations to take place. I agree that it is sterile to go over the matter again. I am sorry that we have got into this situation.

Mr. Lee: Leaving aside the past, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what action should be taken unilaterally by this country if, as may be the case, we do not get


what we want from the common fisheries policy?

Mr. Hicks: I am not the shadow Minister of Agriculture, nor am I in any way responsible for the formulation of our policy, but what I would put on record is that possession is nine-tenths of the game, usually, and we have something like 60 per cent. plus in our hand at present. That is my own view, as a humble Back Bench member of my party.
To conclude, I hope that as a result of this debate the Government are very much aware of the genuine depth of feeling, particularly in rural areas where the fishing industry is important. I hope that they are aware that any action that they may take which will threaten the livelihood of those inshore fishermen will have very severe consequences also for the local economy of those areas. I welcome the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food this afternoon. He has no easy task next week when these negotiations are continued. As has already been said, we have put forward in answer to the Commission our proposal involving variable exclusive areas. It was also reported that for the South-West this involved a distance of 35 miles. I hope that those reports were not accurate. It is necessary for the House this evening to demonstrate to the Government that a 50-mile limit over which we have exclusive control in respect of management, control of resources, conservation and licensing is essential. I hope that this is the message the House will give the Minister to take to Brussels next week.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: This debate is important and timely, because next week the Minister enters the next crucial round of discussions on the common fisheries policy. He does so in the knowledge that Members in all parts of the House back the industry's claim for a 50-mile limit.
The degree of common view, not always apparent in debate, had already become apparent in the all-party Fisheries Group. Those who have attended its meetings regularly know on what broad agreement it has been able to proceed recently in pressing the claims of the fishing industry. There was no better

demonstration of that unanimity than the support I gratefully received from Members of all parties when I introduced my Ten-Minute Bill, which has now passed Second Reading. There is scarcely any hon. Member who would not be prepared to go further with that Bill in order to make it clear that the willingness to take unilateral action is now widespread.
It would be unwise to break that spirit of unanimity tonight by proceeding to, of all things, a vote on the Adjournment. There are many Members, not least on the Government side, who believe that the House ought to proceed to the business which is already on the Order Paper for the rest of the evening. It would be pointless and undesirable to seek to defeat the carrying on of that business and in no way to express an opinion on the vital issue before us. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was right when he said that it would have been better if we had had before us a substantive motion on the 50-mile limit which all hon. Members could have supported. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) stressed how important it was that the opinion should go clearly out from this House that we support the industry and wish to press that support upon the Minister. I see no way in which a vote on the Adjournment can assist that. It will be much wiser if, on reflection, the Conservative Front Bench, when it has heard the remainder of the speeches, withdraws from the curious decision which it seems to have taken and ensures that the unanimous view of the House is reflected, and that nobody is confused about the feelings of the House. There is no doubt from what has happened already that there is overwhelming support for the industry's case and overwhelming determination to back it. That is what we should reflect, not some party division on whether we should continue after 10 o'clock.
The key to the industry's case is the conservation point, although there is also the point of the needs and problems of the British industry. We would never be so hypocritical as Iceland was at certain stages in pretending that we were concerned solely with conservation and not with the particular rights and needs of our own industry.
Let us look first at conservation. I am sorry to say that I have no reason to


believe that the Commission or any of the other member States understand the need for conservation, are willing to institute appropriate measures, or are capable of getting their industries to comply with such measures. There is little evidence that they understand the need for conservation.
When I see member States opposing the herring ban, the necessity for which must be obvious to all, I am astounded at the lack of appreciation of scientifically established fact which is involved. It is apparent that the herring fisheries will disappear entirely—they have already become perilously close to doing so—if we do not maintain restrictions on herring fisheries. For member States to proceed with happy abandon with the scale of industrial fishing, which is causing enormous damage, is further evidence that they do not understand or care about the need for conservation.
The lack of willingness to institute appropriate measures is illustrated by their devotion to quotas, the limitations of which we all know, the near unenforceability of which we all know, and the doubts about which are apparent to anybody who knows the fishing industry well. The ability of member countries to get their industries to comply is shown to be deficient by the well-known instance of the interpretation of the regulations to French fishermen by their own Government, and by some other more recent cases.
There is a disturbing case about which I have been told which does not reflect very well on the instructions being given to our own enforcement vessels. There are reports of an East Coast incident involving a chase after six Belgian fishing vessels, one of which was caught and subsequently boarded. The vessel was fishing for scampi with a very small-mesh net shaped like a lady's stocking. The catch consisted of about one-third prawns and two-thirds white fish, many of which were under-sized. The fisheries officer said that he had contacted London expecting to be ordered to make an arrest but had subsequently been told to release the vessel. Such cases should be investigated promptly.
I would hate to be following the example of some of our Community partners on the enforcement side. We are all convinced that we alone have the

capacity to mount effective enforcement. It can be done at present only by national Governments. There is not the capability, let alone the willingness, to do this on a Community scale. No one can demonstrate an alternative to action by national Governments for effective conservation measures.
My constituents and those of other hon. Members from fishing areas have had to suffer a great deal in the interests of conservation, and they have been prepared to do so. I take the herring industry as an example. There happens to be off my constituency, in the area of the Farne Islands, the Longstone herring fishery, a small pocket where the stocks have been carefully fished on a well-controlled basis. It is generally accepted that there is no threat to the future of that fishery as there is to the North Sea fishery in general. Most scientists who know it accept that it is renewing itself and is not under immediate threat.
In the interests of obtaining general conservation, fishermen from my constituency have had to accept the general herring ban and watch the Dutch catching herring, not in their own area, for their festival purposes, while they themselves are denied access to what is a successfully conserved herring fishery. If there is to be any relaxation, they should have priority.
The wider herring ban has also affected my constituency. As any lover of kippers will know, the production of the famous Craster kippers has been drastically reduced. Those kippers, eaten all over Europe and the United Kingdom, are smoked at Craster in my constituency. Not enough herring are now landed, and so another small local industry is seriously threatened, and with it the future livelihood of those who work in it. In every other fishery one can quote similar examples.
We cannot ask British fishermen to accept strict conservation measures if they are not convinced that fishermen from other member countries who come into our waters, within 200 miles, 50 miles and even 12 miles of our coast, are subject to the same limitations. We have far from even a general 12-mile limit around our coasts. As a result of the decisions made on our initial entry, sections of


the coast have only a six-mile limit, and Northumberland is one of them.
The fishing industry of this country faces an emergency. We must have control and the primary responsibility for conservation all around our coasts. We shall suffer a great deal if we do not, and if the fish that are caught are caught by vessels from other nations. It is often said that all around the coasts of Scotland are small fishing villages. In many parts of England there are similar small communities dependent on fishing and with ancillary industries providing almost the only sources of local employment.
Will they find words of comfort in the documents before us? Document 1173/77 refers to the possibility of
specific measures of limited scope to allow for localised biological conditions and certain disquieting socio-economic or socio-structural situations, while at the same time not distorting the general effect of measures in the preceding category".
Does that mean that the EEC is worried about Seahouses and Craster and about the communities around our coasts? It does not read like that to me.

Mr. Mark Hughes: In the European Parliament I mentioned just those places in introducing the document.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I am glad that he seems to be spending his holidays in my constituency. As he attends the European Parliament, I am sure that he knows better than I what those curious phrases mean.
There is precious little evidence that so far the Community understands the problem or that it is prepared to act. The Commission has the strange idea that if one is about to kill off an industry one must find grants and give it money so that the people involved go away and do something else. My constituents do not want to go away and do something else. They want to catch fish for as long as fish can be conserved for the catching. My constituents have the skills and experience to do that, and there is no reason why they should give way to vessels from elsewhere. There is no reason why they should give up the craft that they have traditionally operated and are best skilled to carry out carefully and moderately.
If one good thing has come out of this very worrying time for the industry, this dreadful situation, it is that, faced by a common threat, there is more unity in the industry than I have ever known. I am very impressed by it. There are substantial differences of interest on how the waters which will be available to us if we achieve our objects will be apportioned between the section of the industry which has retreated from deep waters and the inshore section. Those are problems that we must resolve. I am more convinced than ever that the industry is becoming capable of resolving them. The industry's organisations have improved enormously, both in their capacity to represent the industry and, equally important, in their attempts to put their own house in order. The industry is going a long way with self-policing, and tries to make sure that it has a record to be proud of.
The Government must recognise and encourage these developments. I wish to suggest two constructive responses they could make. First, they should encourage and support the producer organisations which have developed in the industry and the new federation of producer organisations in England. They should give more recognition to the work these organisations are doing. In particular, they should help them take on the quota management powers which the sea fisheries legislation in 1976 put on the statute book. The Government could show that they see in the producer organisations the basis for effective representation of the sections of the industry involved, and for self-policing and management by the industry of its own affairs. Fishermen most respect the judgment of other fishermen, and they are showing an increasing willingness to work together on conservation matters.
Secondly, the Government should look again at their own organisations involved in fishing, to see whether we have an ideal structure. The statutory and legal basis for the White Fish Authority comes up for review shortly, and that will give an opportunity to examine the Authority, the Herring Industry Board and the county sea fisheries committees. There is considerable scope for working out the best structure for these Government organisations. We see some curious things in my constituency, where there are four


separate bodies with conservation responsibilities, each running its own vessels for the purpose. The Navy has vessels in the outer waters. The Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee has its own vessel engaged on protection and conservation duties. The Northumbrian Water Authority has a vessel at sea off my constituency. The River Tweed Commissioners have a small boat in the area of sea off Berwick for which they are responsible. There needs to be a means for these organisations to work more closely together. They may not all be appropriate for the job. Those parts of the Ministry of Agriculture in England and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland that are not occupied in the present negotiations could examine these matters, and I hope that there has already been some discussion about them.
In conclusion, I return to the main issue, which is, the need to secure protection, at least within 50 miles of the coasts of the United Kingdom, of the fish stocks there, and to see that our own fishermen have the first claim on them. It will be no use the Minister's returning to the House without some means of fully protecting our industry. If the other countries of the Community send him back empty-handed, he knows, and the Community should know, that there is widespread willingness and determination in the House to act on our own. I say that as somebody who believed, and still believes, that in its own wider interests Britain should be a member of the Community. I equally believe that it is essential that this piece of unfinished business be properly dealt with.
If the Community cannot see that it will have to face with us and with Ireland an interminable wrangle in which we shall have to stand up for our own rights and interests and protect them even if doing so carries us into the European Court and heaven knows where else. We shall have to take that action if the Minister is unable to return saying that he has found the means to protect what we know is so important.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I thoroughly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). However, I wish to comment on the speech of the

hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), who said that he was the only speaker who came from the South-West peninsula. Like him, I was interested in the opening speech by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I have almost forgotten it, it was so inadequate and skimpy. I was shocked to hear the hon. Member for Bodmin say that the Minister was not doing his job or that he lacked the guts to do it.
We had an international exhibition in Hull on Wednesday last week, followed by a conference on Thursday. All these matters, and many others, were discussed. I defy anyone to talk to people in the fishing industry who were at that conference—whether inshore or deep water— and to say that therere is not the deepest admiration for all that the Minister is attempting to do and for the way in which he is tackling the problem. I am a little puzzled about why there should be a vote tonight.
The hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is always lucid, and today he made many fine suggestions. Although there are 60 vessels in South Down, he deserves for that speech a deep-sea fleet such as that of Hull, with more than 100 vessels.
Mention has been made of the White Fish Authority and its annual report. I have known the Chairman of the Authority, Charles Meek, for many years. I first met him when he was Colonial Secretary in the old Tanganyika. He is a man of the highest integrity and he has used the words "confidence trick" about the CAP. I fully endorse his opinion about the CAP and the way in which we got into it. We all know that the policy was cobbled together by the Six members in a few days, not long before we entered the Community. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for sanctioning our entry under those terms. However, that is all in the past.
In today's debate, hon. Members identify themselves with their constituents. In no other industry—and I include mining—can an hon. Member so closely identify himself and feel in harmony with his constituents. Although I am not a skipper, I feel as keenly as my constituents about the difficulties of fishing in


areas where we fished before, particularly off Iceland. I feel strongly about their present plight.
I speak in a sombre mood because, although it is not all gloom, no one can have any cheer in his heart for this industry in 1977. Shipyards are not building vessels. No ships over 80 ft. in length are being built. Skippers have fewer vessels to command and deckhands are on the dole. We are the Cinderellas in this situation.
I agree with the suggestion that we need a Secretary of State to look after the interests of fishing. In Brussels, we need a Commissioner for Fisheries instead of being part of the responsibility of the Commissioner for Agriculture. I would support any move by the Government to set up a little Neddy for the industry.
I ask the House to look at all difficulties looming ahead. What is to be the shape and size of the fleet in these changing conditions? What about decasualisation, and the mood of the men and how they feel about conditions of work on the deck? That is particularly important in bigger ports such as Hull and Grimsby.
I turn to the EEC documents. If they tell us anything, it is that if the EEC policy stands, not merely shall we have over-fishing but some places will be fished out. The farmer allows his land to lie fallow from time to time. The only occasion when our seas are stocked with fish is at the end of a war. After the last war against Hitler the fishermen had a bonanza. Such situations do not last long. Conservation is the name of the game. These documents are full of such matters as total allowable catches and allocated quotas.
What are fair shares? Fishermen, like other men, cheat. Men cheat at cards and with women. Without doubt our partners are cheating. The Dutch are over-fishing off Dogger Bank. The French take 80 per cent. of their total catch from our waters, fishing mainly off the South-West peninsula. There is no doubt that hon. Members will have to face incursions into the south-west waters of the Channel from our own vessels.
If our distant-water boats cannot get to Iceland and have only a minuscule share of fish from the Norwegian area,

it is clear that we must catch fish elsewhere. Some of our vessels that have been fishing off Iceland will go southwest and fish for mackerel. That will be poor cheer for some hon. Members opposite.
Hon. Members have talked of natural justice and equity concerning our position inside the Community. There is no doubt that the key to conservation is enforcement. We must have a bigger, better and tougher fisheries flotilla to keep out poachers. There is no natural justice in our fishing situation. No other EEC commodity is treated like fish. Our partners do not believe that they must have a share in any of our other resources. No Belgian or Dutch farmer expects to have a share of land in East Yorkshire, for instance. But, by 1982, Belgian and Dutch fishermen will be fishing a few yards off Spurn Point. They will then be fishing up to the high-water mark—unless policy is changed.
What is to be the future of the distant water fleet? We could alone have negotiated bilateral arrangements with Norway, the Soviet Union and other nations that would have given us adequate shares of the catch. To put it bluntly, the Norwegians fear that other nations will not keep any agreements that they make, but they do not believe that about us. Instead of achieving a settlement alone, we are now inside the team of Nine. We experience endless procrastination and delay. That suits the book of our EEC partners, who can then continue fishing within present limits because no definite decision is being made.
What appals me is that our EEC partners are demanding and expecting to get shares in fishing north of 62 degrees north latitude, where they have never fished previously, so here we are getting a diminished share of any total quotas that the EEC gets, and we shall get doubly diminished shares if our EEC partners want to fish where they have never fished previously.
Concerning Iceland, my view is that after the cod wars we shall now get nothing. No honest Member of this House—of course, we are all honourable Members—can really go to his constituents and tell them that he thinks that we shall get anything. I do not think so.
The sum total of all this is a scarifying prospect for Hull, Fleetwood, Grimsby and other places. Where do our men go? Our fleet in Hull has been denuded. Not so long ago we had over 120 vessels, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) knows. That figure is now down to 60. I am talking not about boats of 80 feet but about boats of 140 feet and over, boats as long as 72 feet, and costing £1 million. Here we are having to scrap boats of that kind.
Where do we go? Iceland—nil. Norway—a fraction; perhaps, if we are lucky, 20,000 or 30,000 tonnes. The Soviets do not accept the EEC as an entity in this bargaining matter. Therefore, where do we stand? Do we send vessels to the Falklands to have an Anglo-Argentine cooperative off South Georgia? We all know the political difficulties there. At the end of the day we are now having to send our boats in pairs, with skippers, mates and crews, to Perth in Western Australia, Lagos in Nigeria and so on. Indeed, perhaps part of our future lies in having partnerships with Commonwealth countries or other States for fishing in that particular fashion.
Other States exclude us from their waters. Can we exclude them? Today the cards are completely different. We cannot negotiate separately. It is a ludicrous position. We are dependent upon a Danish Commission, Mr. Gundelach. Commissioner Gundelach has visited Hull. Many of us heard him there. He gave a polished performance that was worthy of any Whitehall mandarin. I say that with all respects to the Whitehall mandarins. However, he was equally ineffective upon his audience. Indeed no one in the university in Hull was impressed.
I have always thought it cheap to use the word "bureaucrat" about our public servants—but we have some in Brussels. Our people here fight for the United Kingdom, but where lie the loyalties and attachments of international civil servants? They lie in Brussels and in the organisation there. I do not think that I am a chauvinist. I spent five years as Chairman of the Fisheries Committee of the Council of Europe. I have been over there in the last few months, in the company of colleagues in this House, talking with senior civil servants there. In my judgment, the EEC is completely unde-

pendable in this context. Therefore, what can we do?
I conclude by following the tenor of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. As a fisheries Member of Parliament, I have no doubt whatever that there is no equity in the present situation. As the hon. Gentleman said, the all-party committee does not contain a dissenting voice. Its 40 or 50 fisheries Members all feel the same way. We believe that there is no equity in the present situation and that it must, therefore, change. We think that the documents before us today and others like them are unjust—in fact, indecent. Therefore, the situation must be altered as soon as possible.
We believe that Eire and the United Kingdom both vitally need a 50-mile exclusive economic zone—no less than Norway wished to safeguard her waters before negotiations began. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed has introduced his Bill. I think that it went through on the nod last Friday. Some people say that that Bill is superfluous and allege that we have powers in the 200-miles extended limits legislation that was passed a few months ago. If we wished to do so and had the will, we could do this.
Next Monday the Minister will be in Luxembourg. I do not think that he will get anything there that is worth fetching back. It is all Lombard Street to an orange that he will get nothing in the negotiations. Therefore, I believe that the Government—and I speak from the Government Benches—should proclaim a 50-mile limit. Let us be taken to the International Court. After all, we were taken there over pigmeat not long ago——

Mr. Patrick Wall: And lost.

Mr. Johnson: —so let us go there and await what happens. I think that we shall be in good company with the Irish.
Finally, the Minister gave a pledge last week in Hull that he would fight for the industry, and he made a startling impression. People believe in his sincerity and efficiency. They believe that if anyone can do the job, he will do it. I believe that the industry still has plenty of old-fashioned British guts in it, and I hope that there is plenty of old-fashioned British guts somewhere else. We had a


fisheries demonstration on the Thames last week. It was a huge success. Let us have a "demo" like that go to the Scheldt, the Seine, the Weser and the Elbe and convince people there that people here mean what they say.
I know that the Minister will do all that he possibly can. I wish him all power to his elbow. If he will only fight, he can be quite certain that he has the full backing not merely of fisheries Members but of all those in the House who want our people to do something worthwhile in the EEC.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I think that the House knows that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and myself are nearly always in agreement over the basic fundamentals affecting the fisheries industry. I certainly agree with what he said about our backing for the industry's demand for an exclusive zone of up to 50 miles. I also agree with his criticism of the EEC. I agree with him, too, that on broader issues, other than the fishing industry, it is to the great advantage of this country to remain within the EEC, although on the narrow ground of fisheries we have considerable criticism of the EEC.

Mr. James Johnson: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say about himself or myself, he knows that I was the only Humberside Member on the Government side of the House who was in favour of Britain entering the Common Market, and I still believe in such an association— but on this matter, no.

Mr. Wall: That is exactly the point that I was making. We both believe that it is to the advantage of this country to be in and to remain within the EEC, although we both agree that it has severe disadvantages for the fishing industry.
The only thing over which I would slightly quarrel with the hon. Gentleman is the question of where the blame lies. I do not labour the point. Both major parties must accept certain blame for the present position. Certainly the Conservative Party negotiated our original entry, but I remind the House that at that time we were considering a 12-miles exclusive zone, and no one would have thought of 200 miles at that period. When it came to renegotiating, if the hon. Gentleman

looks at Hansard he will see that on a number of occasions at Question Time I raised the point that the CFP should be renegotiated before we had the referendum. That the Government failed to do. That is why we criticise them. I agree that both parties share a certain amount of blame, but the 200-mile issue became an issue only at the time of the renegotiation. The main argument therefore took place then, and the Minister was pressed time and time again about it. There were several matters the Government said had to be settled before they agreed to our entry. The Minister of that time was urged to make the common fisheries question one of them, and he did not.

Mr. Robert Hughes: When the initial fisheries policy was cobbled together it was stated that in 1982 there would be no limits. The question of 12-, 50- or 200-mile limits arose subsequently, but it does not affect the basic position that control over fishing limits was totally given away by the hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. Wall: It will be recalled that at the tune we were involved with Iceland, and the general consensus in the world related to a 12-mile limit. Then it became 50 miles and now the norm is 200 miles. Both parties have a share in the blame, but the hon. Gentleman's party has considerably more blame attaching to it for the reason I have given. But this is all water under the bridge, and we have to consider the future.
There are two basic problems to be considered today. One of them does not much involve the EEC and the other definitely does. The first is the future of the distant-water fleet. The report of the White Fish Authority, which has only just come out, states that in 1974 there were 163 distant-water vessels. In the few years since then Grimsby has lost 18, Hull 12 and Leith 14.
The position is really considerably worse than that. While the report was at the printers the position deteriorated. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West knows only too well that a large number of trawlers are laid up in the docks in his constituency which are still regarded by the owners as operational—or the owners are hoping they will still remain so. But it may well be that quite a large number of them will never go to sea again. That is the difficult position facing the owners of the distant-water vessels.


Indeed, in opening the debate I think the Minister said that the loss in terms of catch was about £80 million.
It is quite clear that the future of the distant-water industry is very grim indeed. The writing was on the wall way back in 1948 when the Icelandic Parliament authorised the Government of Iceland to go out to the Continental Shelf. First they went to 12 miles, then to 50 and then to 200. As I said earlier, 200 miles has now become the norm. We quarrelled with the Icelanders—quite rightly, in my view—because they took unilateral action. They got away with it each time. That is what has really put the whole future of the distant-water industry into jeopardy. That is what led to the three cod wars.
If the Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood and Aberdeen trawlers can no longer fish in Icelandic waters, what other courses are open to them? First, they can fish within our own 200-mile zone. The point has already been made that they will fish off the ports of the South-West, or certain Scottish ports, and we shall then have complaints in this House that their vessels catch more fish in one day than the locals catch in a week or a month.
The Minister in due course will have to legislate on this, otherwise we shall have major rows within our fishing industry, and both sides would be in the right from their own point of view. The Minister will have to consider this very seriously indeed.
The second alternative is to have a swapping arrangement—herring for cod, for example—with various other countries. I have been to Iceland in recent times and I am convinced that none of our vessels will be allowed into Icelandic waters for fishing until the end of next year. I say this because there is likely to be a general election in Iceland in June next year, and neither party can afford to make any concession before then.
In any case, Icelanders have said to me "It is not much good our allowing your vessels in to fish for cod until we can fish for herring in the North Sea, and you have fished out the North Sea to the extent that it will take 18 months for the herring stocks to recover." For these reasons I believe that Iceland will be a write-off for some time to come.
As for Norway, when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and I went

to discuss these matters in the EEC, I got the impression that we would get an agreement with Norway which would allow possibly 30 distant-water vessels from our country to fish in Norwegian waters. Seventy per cent. of the foreign catch in Norwegian waters was caught by British vessels, but since then, unfortunately, Norway has taken action and has imposed a unilateral cod quota of 54,000 tons for this year, as compared to the 98,000 tons which the British alone landed last year. That is a very serious restriction indeed on what remains of the distant-water fleet.
The position is more serious—this is where the EEC is involved—because the EEC is doing the negotiating with Norway, and when the foreign quota is decided it will be divided between the EEC members. In the past, as I have indicated, British vessels took 70 per cent. of the fish in those waters. Shall we get 70 per cent. of the EEC quota? I very much doubt it. We shall have to fight very hard in this respect.
The next possibility is to fish further afield. Already some Hull trawlers are going to Australia and, I hope, to New Zealand, to set up joint companies in that part of the world. I think this will be very successful from the point of view of catching fish and feeding the population of Australasia, but it will not help feed our people at home, and the skippers and crews will virtually have to emigrate to that part of the world.
But there are the Falkland Islands. We have greatly neglected them. I refer to a paragraph in a letter sent to me by Mr. David Toulson of the Confederation of Fried Fish Caterers' Associations. It states:
We know from the Argentinians that they catch 160,000 tons of fish between the Argentine and the Falkland Islands. This compares with the 170,000 tons from Icelandic waters last year. On the other side of the Falklands the German research vessels are catching six tons of fish an hour. This is only one eighth of the potential fishing area and we therefore know there are vast quantities of fish to be caught. If research was carried out introducing spawning cod and haddock into these waters then the fishing prospects would become even greater and more attractive.
We should follow this up. Some Hull trawler owners have made experimental voyages to the Falklands. I have taken up this question with the Foreign Office and received very dusty replies. It is


obviously unwilling to encourage British trawlers to fish off the Falklands because it may exacerbate the situation with regard to Argentine. I believe that this is very wrong. We have commitments to the Falklands and to our own fishing industry. This is not germane to fishing but let us not forget that the Falkland Islands include a section of Antarctica, and the mineral resources in that part of the world may be vital to the future of this country.
These are the courses open to us, and they do not offer very much scope, therefore the effect on the distant-water industry in Hull in particular will be very serious indeed. Owners have not yet scrapped their ships but many of them will go. Some of these vessels cost £1 million each and have a crew of 30 to 35. For every man at sea five are employed on shore. No fewer than 2,500 jobs have already gone, and there is 10 per cent. male unemployment in that area. It can be seen that the effect on the distant-water industry is wholly disastrous.
I now turn briefly to the other section in which the EEC is distinctly involved. That is the inshore industry. I agree with what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House in demanding an exclusive zone. We demand this— my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) made the point very clearly in opening the debate—because of the Danes' industrial fishing, which sweeps the sea clear, and must be stopped. It is to some extent checked by some of the regulations which we have considered in this House recently. There is also the problem of the Belgian beam trawlers off the South Coast, which are far too efficient in their methods and are spoiling the fishing grounds with their beams. Above all, we have the problem of the French, who disregard the rules.
My right hon. Friend quoted a letter from my constituent, Basil Parks. I asked the Minister today how many infringements of North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission rules on mesh sizes and the landing of immature fish have been reported by various nations. The list supplied by the Minister will be in Hansard tomorrow. The figures show that in regard to mesh sizes and undersized fish the French have five or

six times more infringements than other countries. We are ourselves not blameless but the French record is bad and the figures only show those that have been caught.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned the case of the Belgian trawler that was arrested. HMS "Achilles" was the frigate that was involved. The vessel was found to have nets for prawning, but two-thirds of her catch was white fish. HMS "Achilles" asked the Ministry what to do and was told not to make an arrest. There may be a special reason, but this has caused considerable concern in the fishing industry. We ought to have arrested that trawler.
However, we know of the reaction when we do arrest trawlers. When a French trawler was recently arrested all the other vessels blockaded their home port in protest. The French do not regard these rules as rules. Whether the blame lies with the French Government, which does not promulgate the rules, or whether it lies with the fishermen who ignore them I do not know. But it is a matter which must be put right if we are to have any form of fishery conservation in the EEC.
I turn to the issue of protection. We have a great responsibility inside the 200 miles. I agree that catch quotas are absolutely useless and that we must have effort quotas—in other words, fishing by named vessels. These vessels should be fitted with IFF so that they can be recognised and their numbers should be painted on them so that they can be seen from the air.
Incidentally, Nimrod is such a sophisticated aircraft that it cannot even talk to the trawlers. It can talk to satellites and almost anything else but not to trawlers. That is a fantastic position. Once Nimrod does spot a chap poaching, we should arrest the trawler and take it into port. We can do that only by ship. The Island Class is too slow. They may be seaworthy vessels, but what is also needed are fast vessels that will react quickly in arresting a vessel when spotted by aircraft.
We also need cheaper aircraft than Nimrod, because Nimrod will suffer from metal fatigue, and we should use Nimrod for military occasions. If we use it


entirely for fishery protection it becomes a very expensive aircraft. It originally cost £3½ million. I do not know what it costs today. I would have thought that some smaller aircraft like the Islander could be effective. Above all, we want small fast vessels.
I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil said. I believe that it was utterly wrong to disband the fishery protection squadron. I protested at the time and said that it was a great mistake. The Government said it did not matter because frigates would be available. I believe the real reason is that they wanted frigates for the ill-fated Beira blockade. The Government have left us with three or four frigates, the Island Class and inshore minesweepers. But we do not have the expertise of the captains of the ships and the senior officers who had been on fishery protection for two or three years and knew the thing backwards and above all knew the trawler skippers and the fishing grounds. I hope that the Minister will consider reintroducing the fishery protection squadron.
I finally turn to what happens on Monday. I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West about the success of the fisheries demonstration on the Thames. It was an impressive demonstration which showed the strength of feeling in the industry. But what is important is to show the Common Market that rather than being a fishing matter this is a national matter. It was not only the fishing industry that is demonstrating about this; it is a national problem which involves everyone.
As you, Mr. Speaker, know only too well, only about five or six hon. Members represent distant-water ports. But about 300 or 400 Members of Parliament have a personal interest in inshore vessels. It is a national interest. I hope that this can be put over to the EEC. I have done my best to do so because I believe this is the key issue.
Having said that, my heart goes out to those hon. Members who said that we should take unilateral action. But my head advises a certain amount of caution. If we take unilateral action we shall be taken to the International Court. The Irish have been taken there, although their case is entirely different. They may

or may not win, but that is not a precedent for us to follow. Certainly the Minister has our full support in doing everything that he can, but if the Government had more credibility in the EEC there would be much more chance of negotiating a satisfactory solution. Now that even certain members of the Cabinet want to come out of the EEC, along with several Labour Members, the Government's credibility is even less. That makes their negotiating position more difficult.

Mr. Watt: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if Britain were to come out of the EEC that would take away not 50 miles but the whole 200 miles and all the fish in those waters?

Mr. Wall: I said at the beginning of my speech that in my view there was a big advantage in Britain staying in the EEC. I agree that on fishing alone there are many disadvantages. However, the big picture outweighs the small picture. If we are in this wonderful position of declaring an exclusive 200-mile limit around our coast, how could we protect it without the EEC working with us? We would have all those countries working directly against us. Clearly we shall be much more effective if the EEC works with us.
I therefore personally hope that the Minister will do all that he can—I shall back him—to try to persuade his European colleagues to settle this issue on a reasoned basis between reasonable men. Above all, it must be made clear that this is a national issue in this country and it is, I am sure the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) would agree, an even bigger national issue in Scotland. He made that point clear when we visited the EEC together. This is a matter that concerns everyone in this country, not just the fishing industry but the housewives who buy the fish, as well as many hon. Members in this House.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: It may be of interest to the House to be informed that it happened to be my job in the European Assembly to present the report for the Agricultural Committee on the licensing proposals. I would draw the attention of the House to a number of minor but significant changes that were made to the proposals, at the behest


of myself and others, before they go to the Council of Ministers on Monday.
The first is that the licences should have a fee attached to them. Clearly, whether it is an EEC asset in common or a private British asset it is still an asset and the right to fish that asset, when conservation is at grave risk, is a valuable commercial proposition. Therefore, these licences should not be given away. They should be charged for, and part of the revenue, if not all, should be used for the purposes of improving the lot of fishermen.
Secondly, on a more minor matter, we noticed that in the annex the specification of the vessels included overall length. When we questioned why the Commission proposed overall length as opposed to the normal marine surveyor's concept of waterline length, we were given the splendid answer that most of the surveillance of the licence system will be carried out by aircraft and that photographs will be taken from the air. The reason for overall as opposed to water-line length was based on how a certain amount of surveillance will be carried out.
We then came across an entertaining legal problem. If a British frigate were to arrest, for example, a Russian trawler acting in the British 200-mile zone, and if en route back to the nearest available British port it at any stage entered the 200-mile zone of another member State—that could happen off the Irish Coast, for example—the captain of the fisheries protection vessel could be at risk of prosecution for piracy on the high seas. That is because in international law the Community has no standing on the high seas.
A little earlier in the previous Session we discussed the first agreement entered into between the Community, acting in unison, and a third country, namely, the United States. What emerged was fascinating. The United States clearly laid down the conditions: "Either you fish under our conditions or you do not fish". That is being increasingly used as a precedent by the Community in its negotiations with third countries. The licence proposals are a part of that.
In the midst of the negotiations, which left some of us overwhelmed, reference

was made to prawn fishing off Guyana. That is French Guyana in the southern part of the Caribbean. It suddenly emerged as Community water. For legal purposes Guyana is part of metropolitan France, as are Martinique, Guadaloupe and various other places. We suddenly find that these are so-called Community waters. There is no legal status, but we still talk about them. They are dotted around all parts of the world—for example, St. Pierre and Miquelon in the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. In all sorts of curious place we suddenly find 200-mile Community waters.

Mr. Watt: Do the Falkland Islands and their waters come into that category?

Mr. Hughes: No, because the islands are not part of the metropolitan United Kingdom.
There are a series of extraordinary positions left by the constitutional state of French colonies or ex-colonies. We suddenly find parts of distant waters from which the fishermen of Britain have been excluded. Let us take the Newfoundland Bank, where there has been historic British fishing and from which the French area has been excluded. No one intended us to get it back in those terms but we did.
I was referring to the Agricultural Committee and those from the Community who received licences from the United States to go and fish. Mr. Gundelach it on record as saying that when we get Community licences in other places the distribution of the licences will be reflected in the internal fishing policy. When pressed, he explained that if Germany, for example, has received a licence to fish for so many thousand tons in United States waters, that will be taken into account mathematically in allocating how many thousand tons Germany will get in the so-called internal Community 200-mile zone.
I raise that issue expressly for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hill, West (Mr. Johnson). It is clear that if that statement is honoured—I have no reason to doubt the intention to honour it—Britain's exclusion from Norway will bring compensating advantages in terms of the size of catch allocated to Britain. That is what is being contemplated.

Mr. James Johnson: On the other side of the medal, how does it come about that the Germans can negotiate and get a so-called licence in these waters whereas we cannot? We have to get Mr. Gundelach and the EEC to negotiate for us with Norway?

Mr. Hughes: No. The Community negotiated licences. America issued licences on the basis of those who had historically fished in its waters over the past 10 years, which happened to be Germany and France. We did not apply for licences. There was no application from Britain for a licence to fish off the United States; therefore, we did not get one. The Germans had historically fished in those waters and the United States granted German fishermen those licences through the Community.
Part of the difficulty when we discuss the common fisheries policy with colleagues and friends from all sorts of political parties in Europe is that they all accept that there is an element of tribal hunting about fishing throughout the Community. Each port in Brittany, for instance, speaks of having its own little tribal hunting area, and behaves along those lines. Without being unkind to our fishermen, regrettably there are vestigial remains of tribal hunting and practices still present.
We have suddenly given a technological capacity to an industry that has had to progress from the skills of the indevidual skipper. Modern radar and other equipment have given the industry enormous skills. It is well known that by means of radar it does not matter where the fishery protection vessel is as the fishing boat can skedaddle out of the restricted zone before the protection vessel can reach it. If the fishing boat has its radar properly tuned it can pick up the protection vessel and move out to where it is supposed to be fishing. As soon as it has seen on the radar screen which course the protection vessel is taking it can return to the more profitable but less desirable waters.
What the fishing industry wants and needs is increasingly becoming incompatible. What the fishing industry individually wants is a free-for-all with everyone else excluded except the individual.

There is a curious paradox. I have listened to the interesting speeches today, and it has been said that when a Scottish, Grimsby or Fleetwood boat ends up off South-West England it is slightly undesirable. If a Grimsby boat goes to a port in the North-East of England it is undesirable. When I was in Northern Norway I happened to speak to a Norwegian skipper and a South Shields skipper. It was clear that the Norwegian skipper looked upon the South Shields skipper as his enemy or rival. The attitude is that the fishermen from one's own port always fish cleanly and with decent methods but that the fishermen from the next port down the coast, particularly if they do not speak the same language, invariably fish wrongly and with indecent methods.
Unfortunately, whatever we may say— some of it has been said today—about our fishermen being better behaved than the French, the French will adduce evidence to the contrary. I do not believe that their evidence is as good as ours—I have a natural chauvinism on the matter—but one gets constant complaints from French members of the European Assembly who have fishing interests. They ask why we cannot keep British fishermen from doing something in their waters. So there are difficulties.
Conservation is and must be the responsibility of the nation State right up to the limit of the 200 miles. It must not stop or have a halfway house at 50 miles. One needs only to look at the maps of the spawning and breeding grounds of certain species like whiting to see that they occur about 60 miles off some parts of the coast. It is more important effectively to conserve a part of the sea which may be more than 50 miles from the coast than to preserve other areas well inside the limit. Therefore, although I agree that "50 miles or bust" is an excellent slogan, conservation may have to be applied throughout the 200-mile limit.
Once that is decided, we must envisage a licensing system for internal fishing, whether it is done unilaterally by the British or by the Community, so that no vessel may fish unless its capacity to fish and its location for fishing are predetermined. Only thus do I envisage the possibility of defending the inshore fisherman against some of the depredations of


middle-water and deep-sea people. Certain areas of waters can then be allocated as the economic preserve of particular endangered groups of people, like the small inshore fishermen and so on. Only when we apply the licensing processes internally as well as externally shall we start to get an effective conservation policy.

Mr. Wall: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest, and I agree with him entirely. Who, does he say, should define the conservation zone, whether it is 50 miles or 200 miles—the coastal State or the EEC? I believe that the law says that it should be the coastal State, in which case it will have to keep out its own vessels as well as those of other nations.

Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the key to the Irish case, that it is, apparently, even-handed, applying to Irish vessels as much as to the vessels of any other country. I have no doubt that the fact that there are relatively few Irish vessels of a size to which it could apply is the purest accident.
The determination of the marine biology for conservation zones is already internationally nearly agreed. The Copenhagen Institute, for example, is of sufficient repute to be acknowledged as impartial between nations on marine biology. It thereafter must and shall remain the duty of the coastal State. The key then comes in what has been debated in the European Parliament and the Socialist Group of that Assembly time and time again. That is, should the States control it as agents of the Community? We say that they should, if the Community produces a fair and viable fishing policy. If the Community fails to do that, they must act in that way in any case. Unless the coastal State supplies and applies the conservation measures, there will be no fish to catch for anyone but if, as we hope, the Community can provide a fair and equitable internal policy, as well as negotiating with third parties, the coastal State, acting on behalf of that agreed collectivity, must do the surveillance, because no one else can do it. We cannot leave conservation to some rather amorphous body. At the moment, only the coastal States have apparently the ability or the will to do it.
In regard to Danish industrial fishing, the House will not be surprised to notice that only two votes were cast in the European Assembly against the proposals on licensing. One was cast by a Dane who objects to all forms of licensing and wants only quotas. The other was cast by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) who voted against licensing on the grounds that, because she did not know how many were going to be given, she could not support giving any. That was rather curious.

Mr. Wall: But typical.

Mr. Hughes: Therefore, while one accepts the need for licensing as a conservation tool, a representative from Scotland, who would have the Europeans in the Assembly believe that she is the only true representative of that nation, was one of two who voted against the concept of licences.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: The House will have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), whom I am glad to follow, not only for his experience in the European Parliament and for telling us what happened in Friday's debate, but also for his practical and sensible approach to the fishing problems which we face in the Community.
The hon. Gentleman has underlined the fact that talk of specific limits in terms of so many miles, although necessary for international negotiation—the limits have grown from three miles to six to 12, and now there is talk of 50—is totally artificial in biological terms. The fish no more know about limits than any other species. We may, therefore, become obsessed with these artificialities, as though they were ends in themselves.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention rightly to the paradoxical attitude of fishermen. Having spoken to many fishermen I know that they recognise this as well. The significant development of the last six or eight years has been among fishermen themselves, and has taken two forms. The first is a realisation that to maintain their livelihood there must be conservation. Attitudes have changed dramatically, especially in recent years. In Scotland, fishermen have volunteered to have a haddock quota scheme. That kind of co-operation shows how the industry


has advanced. From my experience in the Scottish Office I remember the problems caused in the early 1970s by closing fishing areas. I recall that when I wanted to close one small area for herring in the Firth of Clyde for a limited period of the year the opposition to that proposal was enormous, greater than anything one would see today. The industry has moved forward and it is right that we should move in support of it.
There has been another significant development. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, we are dealing with an industry that is organised now. It was not organised 15 years ago in the way it is today. It is a sad comment that it is because of threat of international events that the sections of the industry have been brought together. However, the industry is very much more mature, better organised, and has a greater understanding today, than it had a few years ago. In my dealings with fishermen I find that they are not only concerned with the narrow interests of the industry, but with the wider repercussions and implications for affairs in a much wider field.
The timing of this debate is particularly useful because tomorrow Mr. Gundelach is visiting Aberdeen. He will look at the fishing industry, not only in Aberdeen but also in Peterhead and Fraserburgh, and he will have an opportunity to meet fishermen and other members of the industry, who are organising large demonstrations and marches, and to meet representatives of local authorities. The best message that can come from the debate tonight is to let Commissioner Gundelach and others in Europe realise the unity in this House for the case of the fishermen and the general support for the industry by politicians.
In one sense this debate is one of a continuing series that aims to obtain recognition in Europe for the case of the fishing industry. I am the first to understand and appreciate that we do not expect any immediate resolution of our problem in pressing our case. This debate may well have to be repeated in one form or another on many occasions before we can arrive at a conclusion.
In this respect I thank the Minister for the clear way in which he spoke this afternoon. He helped to reassure many of us about his understanding of the

industry and its case. If he sticks to that he will have the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
I draw attention to the Minister's dealing with the question of the way in which our membership of the community has brought us problems. It is wrong to think that the road outside the EEC would have been strewn with roses and without any problems at all. Of course it is true that the Community brings us problems, but there would have been problems—perhaps of a different or more limited nature—had we remained outside. To claim that there would have been no problems outside is not a true representation of the likely events had we not joined.
Unfortunately, many of these debates are just a forum where our colleagues on both sides of the House put forward pro or anti-EEC views. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) say that he hoped that the arguments today would be put forward on their own merits and not because of an attitude one way or the other about membership of the EEC.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), who said that this issue was too important for party politics. We are dealing with a very important industry and an issue that affects men's livelihoods. We want to see the industry supported in the House of Commons on its own merits and not simply as a means of making party capital.
The Minister made it quite clear that our basic objectives in renegotiating the common fisheries policy were to conserve stocks and to maintain the livelihoods of communities and people who are dependent on fishing.
I was involved with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) in the original negotiations for entry into the EEC. These two points were precisely the two to which we held in 1970–71 in those negotiations. The conservation of stocks and the maintenance of livelihood of people were the two things that were recorded in the minutes of the EEC at the time as being fundamental, in our view, to the review of the common fisheries policy to take place before 1982. It is not true to say that fishing was


pushed to one side in those negotiations. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham said there was no single issue of this nature that caused more debate and discussion at the time than the fishing industry.
I remind the right hon. Member for Down, South that fishing was treated differently in those days. Issues like Commonwealth sugar, butter from Australia and New Zealand, and our own problems in relation to agricultural policy were dealt with under the transitional arrangements. Fishing was dealt with in quite a different category. It was not in the agreed transitional arrangements, but we agreed to accepting the CFP with derogrations for 10 years up to 1982, with a provision that, in the period up to that date, the policy should be reviewed with particular reference to the crucial matters that I have mentioned. I think it was right to treat fishing in a different way, and in fairness to the events of 1970–71 I believe that this should be recognised.
I come now to the position at the end of 1982. It is absolutely true that in the purely legalistic sense under the Treaty of Rome, one could return to the situation of fishing up to the beaches, but one must remember that it is not just legalism but the actual practice of the Community that should be judged. I believe that the Minister would support me on this. The practice of the Community does not follow exactly the letter of the Treaty of Rome. If we look at the actual practice of the Common Market—and I refer here to the Luxembourg agreement of January 1966—it is quite plain that the Community should be judged by its spirit and action rather than by legalism.
I remind the House of the speech of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) which he made in the House as Prime Minister on 17th November 1966. He made it quite clear that we should judge the Community by its actions, and I believe that is right. It is worth recalling the agreement arrived at when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), as the then Prime Minister, met President Pompidou. As is made clear by the Official Report of 24th May 1971, at col. 32, it was made absolutely clear that, regardless of the legalism of the Treaty of Rome and what might

have been negotiated, where any country which was a member of the Community felt that its vital national interests were affected that view should be taken into account if the Community was to move forward with the unanimous agreement of its members.
I do not want to labour this point, but I wish to stress it very strongly indeed. I believe it demonstrates the way in which the Community works. I have mentioned Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers who have shown their belief in that proposition. That surely is a realistic and practical way to approach that matter.

Mr. Powell: On that basis, what happens if there is no unanimity before the end of 1982?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall return to that point before I finish. I believe that is the crux of the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to mention it.
I wish to deal with one other aspect of the policy. I refer to the renegotiations entered into by the Labour Government. It is fruitless to keep on stressing what was right or wrong about the negotiations in 1970–71, or to make similar fruitless exercises about the renegotiation process. It is pointless to say these things about what happened in 1970–71 unless the people concerned are prepared to say on the basis of Government responsibility, not personal responsibility—and I wish to make that clear to the Minister—why they did not raise the problem then. I believe they were right not to raise it. I believe that at that time the political importance of the fishing issue might not have been given the attention it deserved. I believe that on tactical grounds it may have been right not to raise the matter then.
I now come to the point mentioned by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I believe this debate has two main purpose. The first is simply to indicate, through the voice of this House, that the Government, when negotiating, have behind them the strength of this House of Commons, and that we expect them to fight as strongly and as toughly as possible. We hope by that means to obtain a 50-mile exclusive zone in which the British Government have exclusive control over those limits.
The second purpose of the debate is to demonstrate to the EEC the strength of


our case and the feelings of the House. I have not attempted to go into the details of the case because I have done so on previous occasions, and other hon. Members have already dealt with the details. I believe that the issue of fishing and its importance becomes a real test of the integrity of the EEC in its ability to deal with a matter which we believe to be vital to our national interests.
By entering the EEC, I believe that we brought into that organisation a new dimension on fishing. This is demonstrated by the fact that the common fisheries policy evolved at only the eleventh hour before we entered. The EEC should be an organisation that considers the vital interests of its members. If it moves forward in that way, and has the unanimous support of its members in what it does, it will prove to be an international organisation giving greater stability and security to us all. That is the reason I and others supported its entry initially.
This is where I come to the crunch. If the EEC does not take that attitude and shows that it is not sensitive to these issues which are so vital to national interest—and provided that the Government represent them in that way and if the EEC is not prepared to adopt changes to meet the interests of its member countries, the result is that the EEC will have failed. If that happens, the EEC's days are numbered. That is the sanction our Government have, and that must be recognised by any Government when pressing a case that is a good one, as it is here, to a conclusion. That consideration is extremely important for this country and the fishing industry.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I apologise to the House for not having been present throughout the debate. I had the advantage of hearing the Minister's speech, but I had to leave the Chamber to attend to other duties. I intend to be brief because the time of this debate is running out. Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has deal with a number of the points I wanted to raise.
These debates have been haunted in the past six months or so by several considerations. In these debates held on Supply Days many contributors have fastened on the issue whether we should

be in or outside the EEC. It is understandable that those who personally opposed entry come to the House to say "I told you so. I told you it was a mess and you went in with your eyes open." Those people are entitled to say that.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: They are right, too.

Mr. Clegg: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to argue his point, and he usually does—eiher sitting down or standing up. We have to face realities. I supported our entry into the EEC and the legislation that went with it, and I shall have to take the consequences in my constituency. But I believe that we must try to make the system work. Indeed, I see no practical alternative because, however much howling there may be, we shall not come out of the EEC for some foreseeable time. In the meantime, we have a problem and it must be dealt with. The Minister knows that when he meets his colleagues in Europe on this subject, he will have the full support of the House in however tough a line he decides to take. I know that the case the Minister deploys will be more vigorous than that pursued by Ministers who have conducted these affairs in the past.
There has been a dilatoriness about the way in which the negotiations have been carried out, but I believe that time is of the essence—for two reasons. The first reason is the importance of conservation, which must be stressed. Attacks on stocks have been long and sustained. If there are no fish there, it does not matter whether we are in the EEC or out of it because the fish will not be there to catch.
The second reason that time is so important involves the problem of redeployment of the fleet and the question of the 200-mile limit. But owners cannot build ships until they know in which waters they will be fishing because that will govern the type of ship built and other considerations.
Therefore, time is of the essence. I hope that the Minister will say this to the EEC, and I am sure that he will. Time is not on our side. It may be on theirs, but certainly not ours. I ask the Minister, when he is at the negotiations, to consider the position of Iceland. What


worries me about the negotiating stance that is taken by the EEC in this—and I know that the EEC does not have an easy job but nor do we in dealing with Iceland—is that I should not like to feel that the fact that Germany has already concluded a bilateral agreement with Iceland on taking 50,000 tonnes of fish out would mean that the EEC would take that into account and say that we should go softly in case the Germans lost their fish. If the EEC is to negotiate, it must do so for the Community as a whole.
A further point has been raised in the debate today that affects fishermen in my constituency and it will certainly continue to affect us, whatever the situation may be. That is the matter of protecting the fishing zones that we have left. Practically speaking, there is a pretty impressive system in Scotland, where small aircraft are used in combination with fishery protection vessels. The aircraft can identify the ships at sea, locate them and guide other vessels to them. That gets round the problem that was identified by my hon. Friend, the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) whereby a ship with radar can escape while the fishery protection vessel is approaching.
The loss of the fishery protection squadron was a great loss and mistake. We said so at the time because the expertise that the squadron had built up over the years in detection, and its knowledge of fishing, cannot be matched by detaching a frigate or other vessels from time to time. That is not good enough. That is where I shall part company with the Government tonight, if we do not receive a definite assurance from the Minister that something will be done to improve protection. With a licensing system particularly, protection will be vital, much more so than with a quota system, because there will then be a situation in which ships must be seen while fishing and identified, to make the system work. If we have only the air ability, it will be easy for ships to slip in and out. The Icelanders work that system successfully from the shores around Iceland. I feel strongly about this aspect.
I promised to be brief, but I must say again that time is of the essence for my port. Every stratagem that the owners can use—using a bit of a quota here and

there, sending ships to Greenland and experimental voyages—is coming to an end and unless something is evolved by the EEC soon we shall be in grave difficulties. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns that this is a test for the EEC to show that we can take the fishing industry into the EEC. It is an act of good faith and I hope for everybody's sake that the EEC will use its powers in good faith.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: The last two speakers from the Government side have at least had the grace to contemplate the possibility that all may not be well and that the problem may not be satisfactorily resolved. I intervene as a representative of a landlocked urban constituency—without even a river with enough fish for freshwater purposes—purely eschewing all technicalities, to raise one matter with the Minister. The matter was mentioned by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), when he said correctly that this is a national problem and not just a fisheries one.
The fact remains that every time we discuss anything upon which the EEC impinges—whether it is the manufacture of isoglucose, the pig subsidy, the localities for refining North Sea oil, patent law, comparatively humdrum matters such as poultry slaughter, or vital matters such as cheap food imports—we watch the steady erosion of our interests because they conflict with EEC interests.
The fisheries problem illustrates perhaps more starkly than most the fact that our kind of economy is different from that of our partners. The fact that we hold 65 per cent. of the fish stocks means that invariably we find ourselves in a measure of confict with those with whom we are in this incongruous alliance.
My purpose is to ask the Minister, with the utmost good will, to face up to what will happen if he does not get the answers that he wants. It is not good enough for him to say, as he did in reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), that he was an optimist and would work strenuously in the interests of this country. We know that he will do that. He is the first Minister of Agriculture for donkeys' years who has done so, and all honour to him. It is strange


that the Opposition should support him by putting on a three-line Whip on a Supply Day which implicitly censors him —though they do not have the guts or political guile to do so specifically. My right hon. Friend goes about his duties with the good will of many hon. Members, and that will be shown by the size of the majority at the end of this debate.
However, my right hon. Friend cannot escape a measure of criticism if he or the Minister who winds up the debate does not say what will happen if we do not get the answers that we want. My right hon. Friend is already in conflict with the Community in its court and has, for the moment, backed down over pig subsidies. I understand why he has done this although I wish that he had not.
Because conflict with the other members is likely, if we are to end the uncertainty that has plagued this industry, and so many others, since we joined the Community, we must know the Government's contingency plans in case we do not get our way.
I am not optimistic that we shall get our way. It is clear that some of our partners, including, as ever, the French, will try to do us down. Are we going to find ourselves pleading a suit at the court of the Community? If that suit goes against us, what will happen then?
I suspect that, on a strict interpretation of Community law, the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to establish a 50-mile limit, which I wholeheartedly support, would be ultra vires Community law. It will be fascinating to see what happens.
Some hon. Members would not be content with a 50-mile limit and would prefer us to follow the admirable example of the Norwegians and Icelanders and introduce, wherever possible, a 200-mile limit.
At present there is no chance of that, but if we left it, it would become a live issue again.
May we have from the Government a clear indication of their policy in the event of the Minister's proposals being rejected by the Community? Are we prepared to defy the EEC and to act unilaterally? If so, are we prepared to take the consequences that might follow by way of retaliatory action? I hope that we are. We have all the bargaining power because we have all the stocks.

The same is true when we talk of action on manufactured imports. There has been a consistent adverse trade balance and it has got worse since we joined the Community. In this area, as in fishing, the Common Market is not in a position to take painful retaliatory action against us.
At all events, the present uncertainty must be ended. Some time this year the court of the Community is going to adjudicate substantively upon the pig subsidies dispute, so sooner or later the Government have to face the situation of being declared illegal by the Community. I know the kind of answer I would give to them. I want to know what my right hon. Friend's answer will be, and I should like to know tonight.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: During these debates on the fishing industry we very often of necessity have to hear the same facts and figures and the same arguments deployed in successive debates and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, it may well be that we shall have more fishery debates, when the same arguments will have to be repeated yet again. But I hope that one theme which has come to be only too well known in these debates will not have to be repeated yet again, as it has been this afternoon, and that is this rather futile question of who was to blame for the EEC negotiations.
The fact of the matter is that the Conservative Party in 1970–71, when it was negotiating, considered that it was more important to get into the Common Market when we wanted to get in than to negotiate on fisheries. That may have been wrong, but it was what we believed at the time and that is why I voted for it although I knew that many people in Aberdeen and the North-East did not like it. It is also true that when the Labour Party was renegotiating it may have had the same sort of argument. Many of us on both sides of the House urged the Labour Party to renegotiate fisheries also, but—by our votes in the referendum, in so far as we are willing to talk about which way we voted— those who like myself voted "yes" in the referendum were saying that we considered it more important to get info the Community than to protect and to get


the best for our fishing industry. I hope it is not necessary to put up any smokescreens about this; it was an honourable attempt to do what was best, whether or not it was mistaken.
I shall be brief, since I imagine that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) will want to make a short contribution. I certainly welcome this opportunity to reinforce the argument which the Secretary of State will take with him in an attempt to achieve, or to take the first step towards achieving, a fairer deal for the British fishing industry. Of course, the most important thing that he will have to try to do is to make the EEC realise that the United Kingdom has a special interest and therefore deserves special treatment.
There are those who say that the EEC does not understand what is Britain's special interest. This was the sort of argument we had from some of the more fanatical of the pro-Europeans. It is not a question of not understanding what the British interest is. It is, on the part of the French for example, a refusal to understand or to admit that Britain has a special interest, and we do not have to look very far to see why the French, for example, refuse to admit that we have a special interest in a 50-mile exclusive limit. I think I am right in saying that some 80 per cent. of the fish the French industry catches is caught within a couple of dozen miles of the British coast, so of course they will resist as long and as strongly as they can what we regard as our just claims.
Let me enumerate some of the reasons why Britain has a special interest and therefore deserves special treatment. First, the United Kingdom provides 60 per cet. of the fish in the whole EEC fishing pond. Secondly, the United Kingdom has the largest number of fishing vessels in the EEC. Thirdly, the United Kingdom fishing industry catches the greatest number of fish for human consumption within the EEC.
Fourthly, in recent months we have lost out in three of our traditional major fishing areas—Norway, the Faroes and off Iceland.
Fifthly, fishermen in this country naturally distrust the apparent faith that the EEC continues to have in the quota

system. Our fishermen do not believe that anyone else apart from us abides by the system very much. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), in a very interesting speech, pointed out that, wherever he went in the Common Market, he found that the fishermen of one country always thought that the fishermen of another country behaved worse than they did. There is probably a certain amount of truth in that, but there are some facts that cannot be gainsaid.
It is no use the French saying that they do not catch 80 per cent. of their fish within a couple of dozen miles of the British coast. That is a fact. That is why they behave in a way that we regard as worse. It is not just a question of unfounded smears being thrown about.
Another fact is that a delegation has come from the North-East of Scotland hoping to see the Secretary of State for Scotland to point out that in the last three weeks, while there has been a ban on herring fishing in the North Sea, the Danes have fished 2,000 stones of herring. That is not a vague smear. This is the sort of thing that naturally causes our fishermen to distrust fellow members of the EEC with regard to quotas.
The sixth point, which has not been made as explicitly this afternoon as it usually it, but which bears repeating, is that certain communities in this country are heavily dependent on the fishing industry. One is my own constituency of Aberdeen, and there are others all down the North-East Coast of Scotland and England. I remind hon. Members that, although oil has been found off the coast of Aberdeen, and Aberdeen is now known as an oil city, 25 per cent. of the workforce is almost wholly dependent on the fishing industry. If we are not successful in our renegotiations, those jobs and the livelihoods of those people will be put at risk.
My seventh point is that it is a curious fact that, although oil in the middle of the North Sea is regarded as a national asset and is accepted as such by other members of the Common Market, the fish that swim in the same location are not regarded as a national asset. That is illogical. This is brought home to me all the more forcibly when, as one of the Members for Aberdeen, I may speak with two sets of business people within a hundred yards of each other and realise


that the resources of one group do not belong to this country while the resources of the other group do belong to this country. This is an illogicality which the EEC has not yet taken into account in formulating the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Heffer: Precisely because it is an illogicality, is not the logic that the Commission and our friends in the Common Market will eventually argue that all the oil resources found in the Common Market pool should belong to the Common Market and not necessarily to the individual country concerned? Is not that the logic of the next step in the argument.

Mr. Sproat: That would be a logical step. It is not a logical step that I would follow, for two reasons. First, as the hon. Member knows, oil is of importance to this country. Any Government would have to admit the logic of that. But that is what one might perhaps call the force majeure answer.
I would give a logical answer to anybody who put forward that argument by saying that I do not believe that the fish should be within a common EEC pool any more than is the oil. Britain is being asked to make a totally unfair bargain under the common fisheries policy. We are being asked to swap 60 per cent. of the fish within the EEC pond, fish which in a sense are in British waters—I say "in a sense" because it has been a unilateral declaration by the EEC—for the 1 per cent. of fish which we take out of the fish in EEC waters which belong to the other members of the EEC. Sixty per cent. for 1 per cent. is a totally unfair bargain.
Hon. Members might ask "What would you do?" I would say that if the EEC refuses to have regard to the natural justice of this argument this country would be justified in making a unilateral decision, a unilateral extension of the 50-mile limit. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The fisherman's friend.

Mr. Sproat: The fisherman's friend, as my hon. Friend rightly says. Why is my hon. Friend able to say, without immodesty and with truth, that he is the fisherman's friend? The answer is that, some months ago, it was he who came

to Fraserburgh and made what has become known as the Declaration of Fraserburgh, where he pledged the Conservative Party officially to a 50-mile exclusive limit.
I hope that my hon. Friend, having taken that bold and original step then, will say, when he winds up the debate, that if the EEC continues to deny this country what it should have in natural justice, a 50-mile exclusive limit, he will pledge the Conservative Party to take unilateral action in extending the 50-mile limit.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman must know——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Is the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) giving way?

Mr. Sproat: I was halfway to my seat when the hon. Gentleman rose, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Watt: Speaker after speaker this evening has talked of what must be done to save the fishing industry, but no one has talked of why we must take this action to save the industry. I sometimes despair at this country's ability ever to get its balance of payments right. If we were talking this evening of the problems facing the motor vehicle industry, heavy industry or the electrical industry, there would be solid ranks of Members on both sides of the House, but because it happens to be the fishing industry, an industry which has about 140,000 work-people in small pockets all around the coast, very few hon. Members take the trouble to come to listen.
We face a great deal of out-of-date Treasury thinking in this matter. It is high time the Treasury started to take a look at the import content of some of the exports that this nation makes. We must remember that in order to export a car we have to import a great deal of raw materials and many parts, whereas if we export fish all of the fish, all of the content of that export, is real money coming to the nation. If we examine the export of heavy goods we find that half the time it is subsidised by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, whereas with the export of fish it is a case of money on the nail. The cash is paid straight over and there is no liability on the Exchequer.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) taking a great interest in the fishing industry, and so he should because it was the fishing vote that put him into the House. I was pleased to hear him call for the setting up of a little NEDC to look after the fishing industry. Unless the nation realises this industry's potential the industry will continue to be the Cinderella in the House. It is obvious that the industry was the Cinderella when the Administration of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) took us blindly into the Common Market and paid no attention to the industry's needs but accepted the common fisheries policy, which, it has now been generally accepted, was rapidly cobbled up just before our entry.
The dreadful legacy that the present Minister inherited gives him no excuse for his continued lack of meaningful action to protect the interests of the British fishing fleet. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland tell us, for example, why the Government agreed to an extension of the pout boxes only to 60 degrees North? Why was it not 62 degrees? Did the Government not know that in those extra two degrees there are valuable fishing grounds? Those grounds are now available to the Danish industrial fishermen to come in with their small-mesh nets and take away some first-class haddock, hake, and many other varieties of fish that should be going for human consumption, instead of down the holds of those Danish vessels, which take it straight to the fishmeal factory. It is vital that we try to get our EEC partners, the Danes, to stop industrial fishing. If FEOGA or regional aid funds from the EEC are needed to do that, by all means let the Danes have them all. We would much rather have a viable fishing industry than all the subsidies from the EEC.
There was a so-called total ban on the fishing of herring in the North Sea, but there was just a little chink left, which said that the Dutch might have 1,500 tonnes so that they could celebrate some special festival. It is well known in the fishing industry that they promptly took four times the quota that was allowed. They landed about 6,000 tonnes within one week, and I have it on good authority that those herrings were making 50p each on the pierhead in Holland.
That is surely a clear indication that imposed quotas do not work. Whenever the fishing industry has the opportunity, it grossly exceeds the quotas. Let us examine the position where there is a voluntary quota, one imposed by the fishermen themselves. I wish to give the example of the haddock quota that the Scottish inshore fishermen imposed on their own members, a quota of 40 boxes per man per week landed. It is an awful pity that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) knows so little about his fishing job that he cannot see that a voluntary quota of 40 boxes, whether gutted or ungutted, is much better than an imposed quota of gutted haddock. In fine weather such as we are enjoying now it is no hardship to a fisherman to gut up to 80 boxes in a week. It will take him a long time, but he can do it. It is too bad if he is to be made to stay on deck in the teeth of a winter gale and go on gutting haddock that should be coming into our factories and providing jobs for the women in the fishing communities around our coasts. I ask the Minister to re-examine this matter closely. Here we have the fishermen prepared to impose a tight quota on themselves, and yet they are forced to accept a quota that will not be so useful.
I am watching the time. I am sure that the Front Bench speakers from both sides of the House will be prepared to give up a few minutes in order to allow me to finish my speech.
I turn now to the wider context. It is obvious that only limited fishing will be available in Icelandic, Faroese and Norwegian waters. We hope that the Minister will impress upon the EEC how hopeless it has been in looking after Britain's interests. Mr. Gundelach has negotiated with Iceland and the Faroes and he is supposed to be negotiating with Norway. He has done a bad job on each occasion.
I was sad to learn tonight that Regulation S779/77 was not extended for a further three months. That means that boats from third countries will be allowed to come into our waters and take away our fish for a further three months. There should be a reduction in the number of EEC boats allowed within our limits. There should be a reduction in the allowances we give to third countries. Allowances should be made only when there are reciprocal arrangements and facilities


are offered to our fishermen such as are offered by Russia and Norway.
When is the EEC going to face its responsibility to save fish stocks? It is a pity that the House gave away our jurisdiction over two-thirds of the EEC waters. I have never had faith in the EEC and its ability to look after widely divergent interests, such as those of Scotland and Italy. I am now totally convinced that the EEC has neither the skill nor the will to look after our fishing interests or administer the CFP.
As a member of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee of this House I recently visited Humberside. I was saddened to see the number of trawlers that were tied up. They had many years of fishing life left to them, but I saw fishing gear being taken from their decks. I was saddened to sec young, able fishermen taking nets from the boats because the boats had nowhere to go to fish. I urge the Government to take a fresh look at the problem of the boats that are tied up on Humberside and to try to find a way to get them back to sea.
Although there is a shortage of areas in which to fish in the North Atlantic, there are fishing stocks in the South Atlantic. Why do we not make a deal with the Falkland Islands and set up a viable fisheries industry there? We asked the trawler owners and skippers if they could prepare ships to catch these fish. They said that they could and would be delighted to do so, rather than allow their men to remain on the dole.
Fishermen who are on the dole are doing nothing to help our balance of payments. It is unfortunate that the Minister who is responsible for fisheries is also responsible for agriculture and food, but he must get down to this problem of getting these boats back to sea.
I realise that the Treasury will become complacent because of the vast sums of money that will now be flowing into the Exchequer from the products of Scotland's oilfields. I urge the Government to use the money wisely. Oil supplies will not last for ever, but fish stocks will, if they are used wisely. If the Government would use some of the oil money to send boats from Humberside down into the South Atlantic, I for one would be absolutely delighted.
Some hon. Members may have noticed that tonight I have not spoken particularly about the Scottish fishing industry, but I assure them that never for a moment have my thoughts left it. I particularly want the Humberside boats to be sent down into the South Atlantic so that we shall get them out of the waters around Scotland and have them away doing a job for which they are better suited. Many of these English boats are too big for inshore work. It is important that we put them to a task for which they were built.
The fishermen of Scotland know perfectly well that the Scottish National Party will fight for their interests first, last and all the time, and that it is totally behind them in their struggle for a 50-mile zone. I am not very sure that Mr. Gundelach, the EEC Commissioner, knows that yet, but by this time tomorrow he will know perfectly well because in Aberdeen tomorrow he will be told in no uncertain terms and left in no doubt whatsoever of the absolute determination of the Scottish fishing industry to have a 50-mile zone.
I return to the problem of the order on haddock that we debated in Committee yesterday. There are two hon. Members who will be left in no doubt about the feelings that the Scottish fishing industry has about them. I refer to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who yesterday voted for that order.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Far be it from me to defend the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) or the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), but the fact is that they did not vote, and that was despicable, because they were not prepared to face their responsibilities.

Mr. Watt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course those two hon. Members did not vote. Come January and February, in the teeth of a gale, their names will be taken through hand by fishermen many times, and they will not at that time be called "honourable Members".
I intend to conclude my speech very shortly, but I make no apologies for saying that we in the SNP believe that Scotland has a wonderful future ahead of it,


especially if we build up our fishing industry. If we look after our oil interests and our fishing industry we shall be able to snap our fingers at this House.
I conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by giving you one idea. Nothing is permanent——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not about to make any gifts of ideas to me.

Mr. Watt: Nothing is permanent, and perhaps the most urgent task that faces the Government now is to protect stocks of fish within 50 miles. I suggest to the Minister that he does a temporary deal with the EEC, asking the EEC to keep its boats out of our waters for a period of five years. It will take about that time for fish stocks to recover. I believe that under the control of our fishermen, who will fish sensibly, the stocks will recover. If at the end of that time there are extra fish in the areas under our jurisdiction there may be a case then for letting some EEC boats, under strict licences, back into these waters. I put that to the Minister because I know very well that the EEC often works to a time clock. It may well be that it would accept just such a deal. The alternative is that there will be no fish left, either for their fishermen or for ours.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The one advantage of hearing a speech by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) is that one realises that on a subject such as this, as on all subjects, to him it seems that all problems have very simple solutions. However, the experience that I have had in listening to the debate and talking to my hon. Friends who have knowledge and experience of the fishing industry, so many of whom have spoken in the debate, is that this problem, like to many others, is very complex and that there are certainly no easy answers.
I say this only because I thought that the hon. Gentleman's summary of what happened yesterday on the haddock order was one of the most unfair and distorted attacks that could be made on my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr

(Mr. Younger). If we were to approach this problem with the blind simplicity of the hon. Gentleman, we should certainly have even less success than we are haying at the present time. However, there is one matter on which I would certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is the importance of the fishing industry to Scotland.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and other hon. Members emphasised how vital this industry is to Scotland. Scotland has only 9 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom, but it accounts for about half the fish landed in the United Kingdom. In 1976 916,000 tons of fish were landed in the United Kingdom, of which Scotland accounted for 442,000 tons—in other words, 48 per cent. by volume. In value the percentage landed by Scotland was 42 per cent.; that is to say, £85·5 million out of a figure of £200 million.
Apart from that, there are other indications of the importance of the industry to Scotland. In the annual report today of the White Fish Authority the employment figures were given—7,500 in Scotland as against 9,000 in England and Wales.
Apart from that, as I am sure the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) would agree, with her knowledge of fishing, the Scottish inshore fishing fleet is more modern than that of the United Kingdom as a whole. We can see from the figures published in the report this morning that 23 per cent. of the Scottish inshore fleet was five years and under in age, and 20 per cent. from six to 10 years old. In England the figure is 8 per cent. for both categories. We therefore have an industry which is important, modern, and vital to a number of communities.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is very strange that he should be reciting our speeches in this House to us, telling us what we know already, and wasting the time of the House in doing so, when his Government took us into the Common Market, without—as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) admitted on Friday in Strasbourg—a safeguard for this vitally important industry?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I strongly deprecate hon. Members undertaking or usurping the duties of the Chair. The question of wasting time is entirely for the Chair and not for any hon. Member to determine.

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry that after only a few sentences the hon. Lady thinks I am wasting time. She has asked me a serious question. She referred to a debate last week in the European Parliament. As it happens, I have with me the full text of what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). He referred to what had happened and made quite clear what the position was and what steps were taken by the Conservative Government at the time to safeguard the position in regard to fishing.
In the reports of proceedings of the European Parliament, unlike our Hansard, sometimes at the end of a speech, as in this case, the word "Applause" appears. What astonishes me, particularly in view of what the hon. Lady said, is what she said on that occasion. I have a copy of her speech, which followed immediately after that of my right hon. and learned Friend, and I see that the hon. Lady said: "May I echo"—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) was also there. The hon. Lady said:
May I echo my support for the sentiments expressed by Mr. Rippon?
This is rather typical of the hypocrisy of the hon. Lady, that——

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If quotations are to be made, they must be made accurately. I was applauding the apology of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not a copy of the report and it is not up to me to determine whether it is accurate or not. Hon. Members can make up their own minds.

Mr. Taylor: I have the full text here, and any hon. Member may see it and judge whether my interpretation is correct or wheher the hon. Lady's interpretation is correct. On this issue, as on so many others, the Scottish National Party speaks with different voices in different places, depending on the audience. The

hon. Lady is a great European over in Brussels but takes a different view when she comes to Scotland. [Interruption.] In Scotland the fishing industry is absolutely vital.
It has been generally accepted by all those who have taken part in the debate that, apart from the importance of the fishing industry to Scotland in general, there is the question of its vital importance in particular communities. Only a few weeks ago I was in Shetland, where 30 per cent. of all those in employment are engaged in fishing, fish processing or the ancillary industries. The right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) made clear that a great number of villages and towns in Scotland are largely dependent on fishing.
In addition, another thing which has been generally agreed is the situation of crisis which exists in the industry at present. The report of the White Fish Authority refers to the excellent results of the last 12 months but also to the serious crisis which is building up. The report this morning indicates that British trawlers are being driven out of the traditional fishing grounds of places such as Newfoundland, Greenland, Norway, Russia and Iceland. It also points out that two-fifths of the distant-water fleet has gone out of business since our entry into the Common Market and that the whole of the North Sea is subject to a degree of depredation which can only arouse the most serious concern. This problem was outlined in the Herring Industry Board's report published recently, where the chairman pointed out that the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission has nearly exterminated all fishing round our shores.
The one thing that has united all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate is the importance of securing an exclusive 50-mile management zone around our shores. I would make it absolutely clear that the Conservative Opposition wholly support the claim of the industry for this exclusive management zone. The case is overwhelming. As the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) have pointed out, the United Kingdom contributes 60 per cent. of all the fish going into the EEC pond. In addition, there is the special factor of Britain


having lost one-third of her traditional fishing areas in Iceland, the Faroes and Norway.
One further point which ought to be borne in mind, and the EEC certainly must bear it in mind, is that Britain has hardly anything to gain from common access. As shown from figures published in the White Fish Authority's report, the 200-mile limit was imposed by the EEC. However, Britain catches less than 1 per cent. of all her fish in waters of other member States. While the other member States have a great deal to gain from common access, Britain has virtually nothing to gain. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn, who is grunting away as usual, should appreciate that when the debate on the Common Market took place I, along with a number of other people, campaigned against it. During the referendum I also campaigned against it.
We are now facing a real problem, and what we need to do is not to allocate blame and responsibility to individuals or parties but to try to find a solution to a real problem which affects lives and jobs in all our communities.
We should also remember that many communities in Britain are wholly reliant on fishing. The United Kingdom has the largest tonnage of vessels, and catches the greatest amount of fish for home consumption. Another very important reason for an exclusive management zone is that Britain has probably the best conservation record of all the countries of the EEC. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, was absolutely right when he said that other nations have not been successful in keeping the rules or in policing.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will make some reference to the serious issue which has arisen with regard to Area 4 of the North Sea. This was drawn to the attention of the people of Scotland by the chairman of the Conservative Fisheries Advisory Committee in Scotland and has since been commented on by others.
So far as we are aware, Area 4 is an area which the EEC closed in 1975 under an agreement for international co-operation on exploitation of the sea. The object was to conserve fish stocks. The area is beside two other areas which are closed

to the United Kingdom but not to foreign vessels. There have been a number of reports, which have been confirmed by two skippers, that Danish and Faroese vessels have slipped into this closed area simply because no one has been stopping them. The Danes are fishing for herring and have been landing them as part of the by-catch allowed under the arrangement for catching fish. Policing is not effective.
I understand that Mr. Gilbert Buchan, the vice-president of the Scottish Fisheries Board, called to see the Secretary of State yesterday. We are entitled to an indication from the Minister of what action he will take in respect of the very serious complaints. There is little point in having the best agreements and the best conservation arrangements in consultation with other members of the EEC if they are being ignored or if there is no question of effective policing. What is important is the policing not merely of our own waters but of all the waters around EEC shores as long as we have the present arrangement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) was right in what he said about the habits of the French and the dangers posed by the Danes in carrying out industrial fishing. There is no doubt that a long-term solution will depend a great deal on the elimination of industrial fishing techniques and on ensuring that everyone obeys all the rules.
Another vital reason for ensuring that we get a 50-mile management zone is that that would give Britain the freedom to negotiate adequate reciprocal deals. It is a fact that almost all the fish caught by the Faroese and Norwegian fishermen were from British waters before the changeover, as has been pointed out by the British Fishing Federation of Aberdeen. That makes it clear that we would be in an adequate and sensible position to make reciprocal deals with both the Faroese and the Norwegians.
The situation in the Faroes is serious. The negotiations between the EEC and the Faroese seem to be getting nowhere fast. The Commission cannot effectively talk about the quantity of EEC fish available to outsiders until the internal régime has been resolved.
Probably some hon. Members will have seen the telex sent by the British Shipping


Federation Scottish office to the Secretary of State. I believe it was sent on 17th June. It states:
The United Kingdom trawling industry is totally frustrated and dissatisfied with the latest negotiations with the Faroese which took place earlier this week. It was obvious to everyone involved in the negotiations including the Faroese that the restricted grounds presently open to licensed United Kingdom vessels do not afford sufficient flexibility to enable viable fishing to take place at Faroe and do not enable us to catch even the very reduced quota of cod and haddock currently being offered, and the figures for April, May and June so far demonstrate this very clearly.
The frustration on our vessels is heightened because the activities of the fishing fleets of other Common Market members have been hardly affected in Faroese waters and have undergone virtually no reduction. That is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs. I am sure that the Minister will agree.
The negotiations are not getting anywhere. If we had an exclusive zone, we would be in a good position to make a sound agreement, bearing in mind the amount of fish caught by the Faroese in British waters. The same applies to Norway. Norway's fishing grounds are probably more important to British trawlers than any other grounds. The Norwegians have made it clear that they are fed up to the teeth with the delays in getting satisfactory arrangements. They have also made it clear that they do not entirely trust other countries to keep the rules. It is important that we should be able to make a deal with Norway. That would be quite possible if we had an exclusive zone.
There is also the important consideration that a 50-mile zone is in some ways rather easier to police than a 12-mile zone. That was made clear in the evidence given to the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee by British United Trawlers, which said:
In our opinion it is possible to police effectively a wide exclusive fishery zone, given a reasonable number of patrol aircraft and fast protection vessels, at least as fast and seaworthy as the Icelandic vessels 'Aegir'. A narrow belt, however, would in our view be almost impossible to police without a greatly increased fishery protection service. This is simply because offending vessels can enter and leave a narrow belt so quickly—in the case of a 12-mile zone within an hour or so—making necessary surveillance virtually continuous. A wider zone is much easier to protect, as was shown at Iceland in the recent dispute.

That is also an important argument for the 50-mile limit.
We should aim for strong policing in a 50-mile limit and proper penalties for the evasion of the rules. When we consider some of the penalties that are imposed in Britain and other countries it is clear that there is scope for penalties to be increased for those who fish illegally. The BUT thought that for the first offence the catch should be confiscated, and that for the second the boats should be confiscated and one fewer licence be given to the country which had been given the right to fish in our waters. That would be a major step forward.
The overwhelming case for a change and for a 50-mile limit is that the CFP has been totally overtaken by events, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) in an excellent speech. First, Britain and Ireland joined the Common Market, which resulted in a big increase in available stocks of fish. Second, the EEC introduced the 200-mile limit. The third event was our exclusion from certain deep fishing waters. It is vital for all these reasons that we have a 50-mile exclusive limit, and time is not on our side.
Much of the argument today has been concentrated not on how we can get the best arrangement but on who is to blame for our present situation.

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and say whether the Conservative Party is saying clearly that, if it was elected, which God forbid, it would make a clear declaration that it would unilaterally impose a 50-mile limit? Is that correct or not? The logic is that we would then be expelled from the EEC. That would not upset me, but I should like to know whether that is the official position of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Taylor: No, what we have made clear is that the Conservative Party stands firmly behind the industry in its claim for a 50-mile limit. We have made that clear previously and will do so again.

Mr. Powell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain why, if that is so important and so clearly the policy of the Conservative Party, the Conservatives did not move a motion to that effect.

Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) introduced a Private Member's Bill, which received a Second Reading on Friday, confirming a 50-mile limit and that no hon. Member objected to that. It would be sterile to have the same debate twice in a very short time. By having the debate in this form, we have made it possible to debate much wider issues than one on which the House is unanimously agreed.
It is only fair to point out to Labour Members who have protested strongly about our joining the Common Market that when we did so—I was very much engaged in those debates—a 50-mile limit was not talked about all the time. The interest then was a 12-mile limit. As for making our position clear, on 15th December 1971 my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham, talking about the CFP, said:
if, contrary to all practice and precedent, the members of the enlarged Community failed … to reach agreement on the arrangements which could follow the present derogation … there would clearly be a major crisis involving the coherence of the Community itself."— [Official Report, 15th December 1971; Vol. 828, c. 735.]
So there is no question of this matter being left to go by default. My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that we believed this to be the one issue which was absolutely vital, the one national interest which would, and should, not be neglected.

Mr. James Johnson: What was the time scale? Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman talking in terms of 1982, 11 years ahead then?

Mr. Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend was making it clear that at the time he hoped and expected that arrangements would be made long before 1982. They certainly would have been if he had continued with the good work which he was doing. The hon. Gentleman will remember that at that time I was on the other side in that important debate.
We have here a very serious situation and one that will demand tough negotiation and the Government using all their diplomatic skills. It will also involve maximising the good will in the EEC. To that extent I hope that the Secretary

of State will accept—and this is not a rebuke—that it is not simply a question of using tough words. If tough words would get our fishermen the guarantees they are seeking, we would get plenty of guarantees tonight. We have had plenty of tough talking in the House of Commons. But tough talking will not necessarily guarantee the industry the kind of deal and arrangements that we all want to see. We shall, in fact, have to use all possible diplomatic skills and get a maximum of good will.
One question on which I hope the House will reflect is whether the diplomatic skills, the negotiation pattern, and the techniques used up to now by the Government are those likely to get the kind of agreement that we are seeking.
My right hon. Friend has made it clear why we are dividing the House tonight, but I am concerned as well about the question of the fishing protection flotilla. It is absolutely vital, as a gesture of the Government's steel and commitment to the future of the industry, that there should be adequate protection for the fishing industry. It is only fair to say that if there is any possibility of a meaningful announcement—of the Secretary of State for Scotland making it absolutely clear tonight—that the Government will reverse the earlier decision to abandon the flotilla, we shall review our attitude towards the Government's conduct of affairs.
I do not have a great deal of confidence in the way in which the Government are handling our affairs. I do not feel particularly confident about their negotiation techniques or the individuals they are putting forward to negotiate. We have the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) as the Scottish fishing Minister. It is accepted by everyone that the House is relatively united on the question of the 50-mile limit. We should make sure that we go ahead with a solid front and a strong negotiating position. Yet, when the hon. Member for Provan met fishermen in Aberdeen, who made it clear that they were not happy, he said that there was not a hope in hell of getting a 50-mile limit. This did not increase the confidence of the fishermen or those concerned with getting the right answer for the fishing industry.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I notice that in his speech the hon. Member for Glasgow,


Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has talked about a 50-mile exclusive management zone. Is that, in fact, what the industry is asking for?

Mr. Taylor: Yes. The industry does not just want a 50-mile exclusive limit for British fishing vessels. It wants the right to make adequate reciprocal deals with the Faroes and Norway in order to guarantee the future of not only the inshore fleets but the trawlers of Aberdeen and Hull, which are laid up at present because they have been squeezed out. No one is suggesting that we want a 50-mile zone for British vessels only. We want to guarantee for ourselves the right to use these waters and the possibility of providing for reciprocal deals with Norway. There is no point in guaranteeing the position of the Scottish inshore fleets if there are no guarantees for the trawlers as well.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Scottish fishermen are asking for an exclusive zone for fishing and certainly they are encouraged by the Scottish National Party. Is that the hon. Member's position, or not?

Mr. Taylor: Our position—and this has been accepted by the industry—is that we want the right to decide on the use of vessels that come within the 50-mile limit; we want the right to make bargains and other reciprocal deals; and we want to fish in Norwegian waters. Since the hon. Gentleman who intervened in my speech represents Aberdeen, I would be surprised if he did not agree with that point of view. He knows that Aberdeen trawlers are as important as any other vessels in the Scottish fleet. We must safeguard them, and they can best be safeguarded in a 50-mile management zone.

Mr. Neil Marten: What my hon. Friend is saying is that we want sovereignty over the 50-mile limit, which we can trade away if we so wish.

Mr. Taylor: I have already made my position quite clear. We want a right of a 50-mile management zone. That is our position, and that is where we stand. We have made that clear.
We are far from happy with what has been achieved so far. We do not have confidence in the negotiating skills or attitudes of the present Government. Labour Ministers sometimes apear to go

into Europe with the attitude of a businessman going to see his bank for a loan and telling the manager that first he wants to overthrow the banking and capitalist system. We hope that there will be success, but we are far from confident that the tactics and attitude of the Government will find the answers. Certainly so far as industry is concerned, we cannot afford for the negotiations to fail.

9.37 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I welcome this debate from the point of view of its timing, because on Monday there is to be a special Fisheries Council meeting in Luxembourg, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I shall be going.
This is, nevertheless, a peculiar debate. Presumably, the choice of debate and the way in which it was chosen by the Opposition was to allow them to have a vote at the end of proceedings. But there has been nothing in the course of the debate to justify the Opposition or anybody else voting against the Government. On the main lines of policy, I think that the House as a whole has been in favour of the attitudes and points of view put by the Government in recent months. I see nothing at all in anything said today by the Opposition to justify a vote at the end of the debate.
It is a considerable mistake from a national point of view that a day or two before this important fisheries meeting we should have a vote in this House. I regret that very much, apart from the considerable degree of hypocrisy which is involved in the Opposition choosing to vote on this matter.
I want to deal with a number of the major issues which have been raised tonight, and I wish to instance the question of enforcement. I do not accept the various criticisms which have been levelled at our enforcement effort. I accept absolutely, as do the Government, that if we are to have effective arrangements with third countries in our waters, and if we are to have effective implementation of conservation measures affecting Community countries, it is essential that there should be adequate provision for enforcement. But the present enforcement provision, which includes the


fishery protection squadron, was planned specifically on the basis that we would be extending our national zone to 200 miles.
It is untrue to say that the enforcement machinery and reasources have not been considerably increased. They have been increased in the case of the Royal Navy by the Island Class, two of which are now operating. The gap can be filled in the meantime by frigates, mine counter vessels, fast patrol boats, and other patrol craft, as well as by the three inshore and three offshire vessels run directly by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland. Added to this effort is the considerable enforcement surveillance undertaken by the Nimrod aircraft.
I repudiate the allegation that we are operating an ineffective enforcement. I noticed that the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee examined this matter carefully and, although it has not reached its final conclusions, nothing in its report published in March justifies criticism of our enforcement effort.
I can give an example of that from the Scottish point of view. Since 1st January there have been nine prosecutions in Scotland for fishing offences by foreign vessels and substantial fines are now regularly imposed in Scotland. In these cases the total fines were more than £100,000 and in all but one case the catch and gear were also confiscated. I am by no means complacent. I accept that with a 200 mile zone there are problems of enforcement quite different from those in the past when we were dealing simply with inshore waters. We have put much additional effort into it, and nothing that has happened since January would justify voting against the Government on this issue any more than anything else that has happened since January in fishing matters would do so.

Mr. Wall: Does the Minister agree that frigates are now taken off other duties and put on to fishery protection for short periods whereas the fishery protection squadron had each vessel staying in that squadron for two or three years so that those concerned really understood the job? That was the basis of the challenge.

Mr. Millan: It is not true that we do not have a Fishery Protection Squadron, and anyone who goes to the Spithead Naval Review next week will see it on display. I agree that the stop-gap measures with frigates are not satisfactory, and that is why we are building up the Island class. It is absurd to say that there has been no effort put into enforcement measures since the beginning of this year.

Mr. Peyton: Nobody is saying that no effort is being made in enforcing protection, but the charge made by the Opposition is that the effort has been significantly diminished at a time when pressures and needs have become greater.

Mr. Millan: That is absurd. It is simply factually and completely inaccurate. Effort has been significantly increased in recent months. If the Opposition are trying to justify a vote against the Government on that basis, it is too silly for words.
I turn to conservation, because hon. Members generally have stressed the importance of adequate conservation. There has already been a certain amount of discussion within the EEC for working out an adequate system, but that will take time, and we accept that shorter-term measures must be taken as necessary for the protection of our stocks. We have made it absolutely clear—as the Minister of Agriculture made clear this afternoon—that we are prepared to take unilateral, non-discriminatory action on what we regard as urgently needed conservation measures. We have made that clear within the Community. We have had, for example, an agreement on the Norway pout box and also a ban on fishing for herring in the North Sea. We stand ready, if we are not able to obtain Community agreement under the terms of the agreement we reached within the Community last October in The Hague, to take further unilateral measures. I make that clear.
If we are to have conservation measures they must be adequately monitored. We are therefore pressing ahead, in conjunction with our Common Market partners, with such arrangements as the keeping of log books, checks at sea, full collection of data on landings, and the sending of data to a central source as well as


its being collected within individual countries.
I accept what has been said by many hon. Members today—that there is a great deal of scepticism in the British fishing industry about the way in which conservation measures have been carried out in the past and a great deal of suspicion that, in many places, there has been a considerable tendency to look for loopholes and doubts whether every Government have always carried out the policy with the honesty upon which conservation ultimately depends.
The herring skippers raised with me yesterday difficulties in the Skagerrak area. I have taken this up with the Commission and said that we believe that this area should be regarded as part of the North Sea and subject to the conservation measures in operation there. We are well aware of all these problems, and we do not approach them on the innocent basis of believing that if someone puts something nice on a piece of paper, it will necessarily be put into practice. We know that there has to be adequate enforcement.
The question of herring stocks in the North Sea and off the West Coast of Scotland is a matter of immediate interest and is on the agenda for the meeting in Luxembourg on Monday. There is no doubt that scientific evidence points to only one conclusion—that there should be a complete ban on fishing for herring in the North Sea and that it should be sustained for a sufficient period to allow the stocks to regenerate. To be fair to the Commission, it has twice recommended this action to the Council of Ministers, and we have supported it, but we have been in a minority of one.
Despite that, we have managed to get a ban on fishing for herring in the North Sea, but only for a month at a time. We believe that this should be extended. We fully appreciate that this will cause damage to our own herring industry, but we believe that it would be worthwhile in the long run because, without it, there is a danger to the herring stocks in the North Sea.
The question of herring off the West Coast of Scotland is also under discussion in the Community, on our initiative. There is a ban for a single month, which we supported, but we want an allocation

of quotas in this area. I shall not go into detail now, but the original quotas suggested by the Commission were too large. They gave us an allocation of more than 70 per cent. of the total allowable catch for the Community, and we consider that proportion right, although we do not necessarily consider that the total allocation makes sense in terms of conservation.
As I shall be saying at Monday's meeting, we are anxious to get a conclusion about the bans off the West Coast as well as in the North Sea. Our industry is in a state of complete indecision and we want to remove that as rapidly as we can.
There are other matters with which I shall try to deal in detail. Before I come to exclusive or coastal preference zones, let me deal with third-country fishing. In some respects, we have made progress here in the last few months. There has been a certain advantage in the negotiations that we have had, through the Community, with third countries, given the widespread establishment of 200-mile national limits.
We have been able to make considerable reductions in the allowances for countries of Eastern Europe, particularly the USSR. We take a simple view in these negotiations with countries outside the Community. If they have something to offer us in reciprocal fishing rights in their waters, we are willing to reach a sensible agreement with them. When other countries have nothing to offer us in their waters, our intention is to have them phased out of our waters as rapidly as possible. It is on that basis that we are proceeding on third country fishing at the present time and, as I say, with some of the nations concerned we are making a certain amount of progress, although with the principal nations with which we have difficulty, such as Iceland, Norway and the Faroes, as my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, the situation is a good deal less satisfactory. We admit that absolutely frankly.
But I do not accept that there has been any lack of effort on our part in any of these third country negotiations. One of the things that makes it very difficult to get final agreement, for example with Norway, is that we have not yet settled within the Community our own internal


régime, and it is only when we have settled that in a satisfactory way and know how much fish is available to the Community, how it is to be allocated within the Community, how we are to enforce those allocations, and so on, that we shall be able to get completely satisfactory agreements with third countries, including those which are particularly important from the point of view of the British fishing industry. Therefore, we have always argued that we should get ahead with discussions on the definitive internal régime as rapidly as possible, and I hope very much that we shall make at least some progress on this matter at the meeting in Luxembourg on Monday.
But I must make it absolutely clear to the House that in many of these matters the situation in which the Government find themselves because of the very existence of the common fisheries policy per se is that we have certain interests and the other nations of the Community have certain interests which are antithetical to the interests of the United Kingdom. It is in that situation and with that background that we are negotiating, but we are negotiating with utter determination and we have not conceded anything in the discussions on ancillary matters over the last few months on any particular item which would prejudice the situation with which we have to deal in terms of the definitive internal régime.
I am very glad to hear the House unanimous today about the importance of the 50-mile zone round the United Kingdom. There has been unanimous approval, I think, of the suggestion that we ought to concentrate on the 50 miles round the United Kingdom. But I hope that hon. Members will read very carefully the remarks that were made by my right hon. Friend today and the analysis he made of the 12-mile zone in the first place and then the wider zone between 12 and 50 miles. This demonstrates that if we could achieve an exclusive right to fish within the 12-mile zone—there would have to be a phasing-out period— and then what my right hon. Friend called a dominant preference within the 12- to 50-mile zone and also a satisfactory level of fishing in other waters—that is, in the rest of the United Kingdom's 200-mile zone and those of third countries—we would

have the basis in terms of potential fish catches for providing an economic fishing industry for this country.
What the House must remember all the time is that all the arguments about limits, preferential zones, exclusive zones, enforcement and the rest are directed towards achieving a satisfactory total catch, satisfactorily distributed over the different species, for the British fishing industry —and in saying that I have the Scottish industry, my own responsibility, very much in mind.

Mr. James Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend understand that we may even get in total 800,000 tonnes, but what about the distant-water fleet, because if we are not allowed an entry into the old fishing grounds, these big vessels of ours cannot go into inshore fishing? What will they do about these?

Mr. Millan: There has been a reduction, and my right hon. Friend gave the figures for distant-water fishing. I think that a realistic appraisal of the situation is that we shall not be able to recover all of them within the waters concerned because the Norwegians themselves are cutting back on what they are willing to offer to us and the rest of the Community since from their point of view we are third countries. So it is not a practical possibility to reproduce in the future exactly the same fishing pattern as we have had in the past.
That does not mean that we should not have an industry of the same size rather differently distributed with a firm base for progress in the future. That is what the argument is about. We are basing our argument—apart from the history of the matter—on the simple proposition that we contribute to the waters of the Community as a whole more than 60 per cent. of its fishery resources, and that that must be given full consideration in any negotiations on the internal régime as well as matters of historic catches.
In taking account of our demands we have very much in mind the losses that we have inevitably incurred in the waters of third countries. We are determined to make this up, as far as possible, first, within the 50-mile limit and then within the waters of the United Kingdom up to the 200-mile limit.
We are facing very difficult negotiations, but I think it is common ground


that my right hon. Friend and other Ministers in these negotiations put the case for the United Kingdom with considerable vigour and determination. I notice that the Expenditure Committee, in the report to which I have already referred, stated:
We have been impressed by the determination which the Government has displayed in attempting to secure the best possible future for the British industry within the Community's CFP.…We have been satisfied with the Government's negotiating stance so far".
I return to the point that I made at the beginning of the debate. It is extraordinary that the Opposition should have chosen to organise the debate in this way with an apparent determination, in the face of all the facts and, in my view, against the national interest, to have a Division at the end. Nothing has been said from the Opposition Front Bench, nor by Opposition Back-Bench Members, to justify a vote against the Government tonight.
I believe that, given the history of this matter and given the abject failure of the Conservative Government to protect the fishery interests of the United Kingdom when leading up to our accession to the Common Market——

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—

Mr. Millan: I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart took

Division No. 181]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fry, Peter


Alison, Michael
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Arnold, Tom
Cockcroft, John
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)


Awdry, Daniel
Cope, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Corrie, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Bell, Ronald
Crawford, Douglas
Goodhew, victor


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Crouch, David
Goodlad, Alastair


Benyon, W.
Crowder, F. P.
Gorst, John


Biffen, John
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gray, Hamish


Blaker, Peter
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Griffiths, Eldon


Body, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Grylls, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Drayson, Burneby
Hall, Sir John


Bottomley, Peter
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Durant, Tony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Dykes, Hugh
Hampton, Dr Keith


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hannam, John


Brittan, Leon
Elliott, Sir William
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Emery, Peter
Hastings, Stephen


Brooke, Peter
Evans, Gwyntor (Carmarthen)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Hay hoe, Barney


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eyre, Reginald
Henderson, Douglas


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hicks, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hodgson, Robin


Buck, Antony
Fell, Anthony
Holland, Philip


Budgen, Nick
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hordern, Peter


Bulmer, Esmond
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Burden, F. A.
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh, N)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Carlisle, Mark
For man, Nigel
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Churchill, W. S.
Fox, Marcus
Hurd, Douglas

slightly more than his fair share of the time. Given the failure of the Conservative Government to protect our fishing interests during the negotiations for entry to the Common Market and the fact that there is considerable agreement on both sides of the House tonight about the essential interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry which have to be protected in the renegotiations, I consider it utterly deplorable that the Opposition, for what I imagine to be some misguided belief that it would be politically opportune, should have chosen to debate this subject in such a way that it will lead to a Division.

It will cut no ice with the fishing industry. I and my right hon. Friend have acted all through these negotiations in the closest consultation with representatives of the fishing industry. I met them yesterday, and they will be in Luxembourg during the discussions next week. I believe that what we are doing has the support of the industry and of the country. I hope that the House will reject this deplorable attempt by the Opposition to defeat the Government.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 250.

Hutchison, Michael Clark
Monro, Hector
Sinclair, Sir George


James, David
 Moore, John (Croydon C)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Jopling, Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Speed, Keith


Kaberry, Sir Donald
 Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Spence, John


Kershaw, Anthony 
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester


Kilfedder, James 
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Sproat, lain


Kimball, Marcus 
Mudd, David
Slanbrook, Ivor


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Neave, Airey
Stanley, John


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Nelson, Anthony
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Knox, David
Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Lamont, Norman
Newton, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Langlord-Holt, Sir John
 Nott, John
Stokes, John


Latham, Michael (Melton) 
Onslow, Cranloey
Tapsell, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally 
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Lawson, Nigel
Osborn, John
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Tebbit, Norman


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lloyd, Ian
Pattie, Geoffrey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Loveridge, John
Percival, Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Luce, Richard
 Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thompson, George


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Townsend, Cyril D.


MacCormick, lain
Prior, Rt Hon James
Trotter, Neville


McCrindle, Robert
 Pym, Rt Hon Francis
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Macfarlane, Neil
 Raison, Timothy
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


MacGregor, John
Rathbone, Tim
Viggers, Peter


MacKay, Andrew James
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wakeham, John


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) 
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) 
 Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
 Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Madel, David
 Rhodes James, R. 
 Walters, Dennis


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
 Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Watt, Hamish


Marten, Neil
Rifkind, Malcolm
Weatherill, Bernard


Mates, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wells, John


Maude, Angus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Welsh, Andrew


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Mawby, Ray 
Sainsbury, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Mayhew, Patrick 
Scott, Nicholas
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
 Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Younger, Hon George


Mills, Peter
Shepherd, Colin



Miscampbell, Norman
Shersby, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Silvester, Fred
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Moate, Roger
Sims, Roger
Mr. Carol Mather.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Clemitson, Ivor
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Allaun, Frank
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Forrester, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cohen, Stanley
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Armstrong, Ernest
Conlan, Bernard
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Ashley, Jack
Corbelt, Robin
Freeson, Reginald


Ashton, Joe
Cowans, Harry
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Atkinson, Norman
Crawshaw, Richard
George, Bruce


Barnelt, Guy (Greenwich)
Cronin, John
Gilbert, Dr John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Ginsburg, David


Bates, Alf
Cryer, Bob
Golding, John


Bean, R. E.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Gould, Bryan


Beith, A. J.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Gourlay, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony (Wedgwood)
Davidson, Arthur
Graham, Ted


Bennelt, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Grocott, Bruce


Boardman, H.
Deli, Rt Hon Edmund
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dempsey, James
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Doig, Peter
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dormand, J. D.
Hatton, Frank


Bradley, Tom
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Duffy, A. E. P.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dunn, James A.
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dunnett, Jack
Hooley, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Horam, John


Buchanan, Richard
Edge, Geoff
Howe, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Campbell, Ian
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Huckfield, Les


Canavan, Dennis
English, Michael
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cant, R. B.
Ennals, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carmichael, Neil
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carter, Ray
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Hunter, Adam


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Cartwright, John
Flannery, Martin
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Janner, Greville







Jeger, Mrs Lena
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moyle, Roland
Snape, Peter


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Spearing, Nigel


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Newens, Stanley
Stallard, A. W.


Judd, Frank
Noble, Mike
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Kaufman, Gerald
Oakes, Gordon
Stoddart, David


Kelley, Richard
Ogden, Eric
Strang, Gavin


Kerr, Russell
O'Halloran, Michael
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Orbach, Maurice
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Kinnock, Neil
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Swain, Thomas


Lambie, David
Orenden, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lamborn, Harry
Padley, Walter
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Lamond, James
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Pardoe, John
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Leadbitter, Ted
Park, George
Tierney, Sydney


Lee, John
Parker, John
Tinn, James


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Parry, Robert
Tomlinson, John


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Pavitt, Laurie
Torney, Tom


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pendry, Tom
Tuck, Raphael


Lipton, Marcus
Penhaligon, David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Perry, Ernest
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


McCartney, Hugh
Radice, Giles
Ward, Michael


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Watkins, David


McElhone, Frank
Richardson, Miss Joe
Weetch, Ken


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weitzman, David


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wellbeloved, James


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Robinson, Geoffrey
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Maclennan, Robert
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
White, James (Pollok)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Whitlock, William


Madden, Max
Rooker. J. W.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Magee, Bryan
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Mahon, Simon
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Marks, Kenneth
Ryman, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Rt Hen Sir Harold (Huyton)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Selby, Harry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Meacher, Michael
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Woodall, Alec


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Woof, Robert


Mendelson, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)



Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Sillars, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Silverman, Julius
Mr. James Hamilton and


Molloy, William
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Small, William

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS)

10.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strong): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission documents R/1125/7 and R/1149/77 and, while welcoming the opportunity which the proposal in R/1125/77 would offer for reducing monetary compensatory amounts for pigmeat, considers that the scope and criteria for its application in other sectors ought to be more clearly specified.
The green currency system is of great importance to the United Kingdom and, indeed, to all member States of the Community. Clearly, therefore, it is right that proposals affecting its basic functioning should be very carefully examined, and I welcome the decision of the Scrutiny Committee to recommend these two documents for debate. I am also grateful to it for setting out so clearly in its reports the complicated technical implications of the proposals.
We have often in this House debated the quesiton of the green pound. These proposals, however, are not just about the green pound. They are about the green currency system as a whole. Before looking at the proposals in detail, it is worth recalling the basic aims of the green currency system. CAP support prices are converted into national currencies at fixed exchange rates. If fluctuating market exchange rates were used for this purpose, support prices expressed in national currencies would vary daily. This would conflict with the basic CAP objective of providing stable prices.
But the effect of having special exchange rates for CAP purposes is that support prices are not the same throughout the Community. In countries whose real currencies have appreciated, such as Germany, CAP support prices are relatively high. In countries whose real currencies have depreciated, such as France or the United Kingdom, they are relatively low. If this situation were combined with full free trade, CAP commodities would be attracted to the high-price countries. This would put the intervention arrangements in those countries

under impossible strain, and it would, of course, be harmful to consumers in the lower-price countries.
Monetary compensatory amounts are, therefore, applied to imports and exports of the main agricultural commodities in order to bridge the gap between the differing real support prices being applied by the various member countries.
Against this background, the Commission proposal in Document R/1125/77 may sound revolutionary. If it were accepted, the Commission would be able to set MCAs at a level which was less than the full difference between intervention prices in the various member countries. In a sense this is contrary to the basic objective of MCAs. In practice, however, it has already been found that there are circumstances in which the full gap does not need to be bridged. For example, in the beef sector the Council agreed in 1975 to a reduction in MCAs to cope with the situation in which market prices can be below full intervention prices.
There is also a more general precedent. The MCAs of countries such as France or the United Kingdom whose currencies are floating have to be reviewed each week in the light of developments on the currency market. Even so, they can only reflect past performance of the currency, not its exact situation on the day in which the MCA is applied. An MCA which is somewhat less than the full gap between intervention prices has been found in practice to be reasonably effective. Our MCAs and the MCAs of other floating currency countries are abated by 1·5 percentage points.
We recognise the reasons for these precedents. I need hardly remind hon. Members that we have also argued strongly on pigmeat that MCAs should not cover the difference in intervention prices. The basic justification for this is that public intervention is almost never used in the pigmeat market. MCAs need do no more than offset the differences in cereal feed costs, just as they do for poultry and eggs. We do not, therefore, quarrel with the principle of the Commission's proposal, and we welcome this recognition of the strength of our arguments on pigmeat.
The text of the amendment proposed by the Commission, however, may need more clarification. Indeed, the view that the amendment is too widely drawn is shared by many member States. Several of them also argue that they cannot consider a detailed change in the system separately from more fundamental reform. They refer to the long-term proposals which the Commission made at the end of last year for changes in the green currency system. These proposals involved automatic adjustments of green rates based on the size of each country's MCAs.
These matters were discussed on Monday, and it was interesting to see in the Council the line-up of the various member States. On the one hand, the Benelux group, with Denmark, strongly took the view that we should not agree to this proposal without more radical changes in the green currency system, by which they meant something like the automatic adjustments originally proposed by the Commission last year. On the other hand, there are countries, such as Italy, France and the United Kingdom, which see some merit in this proposal, provided that it is reasonably tightly drawn, to enable some adjustments to be made by the Commission to certain MCAs. Ireland tends to go with the Benelux countries on this, and Germany seems to be in a position of its own, in that it is generally opposed to any change in the MCA system and is certainly unhappy about the proposal to give the Commission the power to fix MCAs on the basis of prices lower than the current intervention prices.
Hon. Members will recall that these proposals were discused by this House in the course of the debate before this year's price package. My right hon. Friend then made clear the Government's opposition to them, and the House, in the motion adopted, endorsed
the Government's view that decisions on whether Commission proposals for changes in a member State's representative rate should be accented are primarily a matter for that member State."—[Official Report, 16th March 1977; Vol. 928, c. 417.]

Mr. Neil Marten: Were the countries in favour thinking nationally? What, for example, did the countries that were against it think of it? What is the Community answer to this problem?

Mr. Strang: If the hon. Gentleman is talking in terms of the conventional

policy of the Commission, the attitude is against MCAs, because the thinking of the Commision and of the proponents of the system, as it were, the idea being MCAs, and they are still seen by some people as a sort of temporary noise in the system, as it were, the idea being that we should return to a position in which we do not have MCAs. Indeed, when this issue was raised during the original United Kingdom negotiations, we were informed that we did not need to worry about MCAs because they were temporary and would have gone by the time we acceded to the Common Market. However, perhaps I may continue with my speech.
The second document before us tonight, R/1149/77, is a communication from the Commission which shows that it is considering very substantial modifications to that proposal—by which I mean last year's proposal to make radical adjustments in MCAs. The communication is only in very general terms and, before it could be acted upon, a legislative proposal would have to be prepared. This would be submitted to the Scrutiny Committee in the normal way, and I have little doubt that, in view of its importance, the House would wish to have an opportunity to debate it. I know that this is of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
What we have before us tonight is simply an indication of the way in which the Commission is now thinking. It suggests that its new proposals, when it is made, will be based on three ideas.
First, existing MCAs should be gradually reduced, but this process should be carried out in a way flexible enough to deal with any economic and political difficulties which it might cause.
Secondly, new MCAs should normally be eliminated at each price-fixing.
Thirdly, the European unit of account, EUA, should perhaps be used for the common agricultural policy.
The last idea is the most novel. MCAs are now calculated on the basis of market rates of exchange with the currencies in the European joint float. This is convenient technically because the MCAs of countries in the joint float are fixed and change only on the rare occasions when these countries change either their green


currencies or the value of their real currencies in comparison with all other members of the joint float.
It has, however, the perverse effect that movements in the joint float as a whole show up in the MCAs of non-joint float member countries. This does not matter so long as MCAs are used only for bridging the gap between intervention prices. But it matters a great deal if MCAs are to be the criterion for changing green rates. We made this point very strongly in Brussels when the Commission proposed its automatic adjustment mechanism.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Since this is a technical matter, I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive this apparent naive interruption. Is he now referring to what I, and some of my hon. Friends, call the "burst snake" effect— in other words, using the calculation after the "snake" has changed? If he can confirm that that is so, it will be helpful to some of us who get rather lost with some of these mathematical calculations.

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend is, in his own words, describing what I am referring to. I am referring to the fact that the agricultural unit of account is based on an unrepresentative basket of currencies because the United Kingdom, France and Italy—three major countries—are all excluded from the joint float.
Returning to the point that I was making before my hon. Friend intervened, I am glad to see from this communication that they recognise its validity. If MCAs were based on the European unit of account and, hence, on all member currencies, as the Commission now seems to be suggesting, the MCA system would not be discriminatory between joint float and non-joint float countries. Even, however, if the system itself were corrected in this way, we should still need to consider very carefully our attitude to any automatic adjustment proposals.
The EUA is certainly the most interesting point in the Commision's communication. I can be briefer on the rest of it. The Commission is suggesting that it would be possible to find a way of gradually phasing out existing MCAs which takes account of the political and economic difficulties involved. This can be properly judged only when we have

details of the Commission's proposals. The same must also be said of the idea that new MCAs should normally be eliminated at the price-fixing.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: What time scale does the Minister foresee for this event? The Commission has used the phrase that it wishes to see future MCAs eliminated within "a short time". How does the Minister see this coming to pass? What is the time scale?

Mr. Strang: The Commission document refers on the one hand to existing MCAs and on the other to new MCAs which would develop subsequent to the introduction of the new policy. The idea is that it would like to see the new MCAs phased out at each price-fixing. I cannot answer with regard to existing MCAs, because no one knows until the Commission brings forward proposals. That should not be before October, and as yet we have no idea. It may well be that those proposals will not spell out the time scale because it is common in the Community, and in Government generally, that such things take longer than originally intended.
There is obvious sense in linking decisions on green currencies, which determine what common prices mean in each individual member State, with decisions on common prices themselves On the other hand, anything which removed an element of flexibility from the price-fixing process could make the job of finding a generally acceptable price package even more difficult.
Clearly, therefore, the Commission's proposals will need very careful scrutiny when they are available. I cannot do more now than indicate the principles against which we think that the proposal should be judged when it is made. First, in so far as it affects the green pound, the Government's attitude will be to judge whether it implies any changes which are contrary to our national interest. This is exactly the same basis on which we have judged individual proposals for changes in our green rate. Secondly, as it affects other green currencies—and it is worth reminding the House that it affects other green currencies as much as it affects our own—we shall wish to bear in mind the need to avoid introducing a system under which the fixing of support prices in the currencies of the various


member States is so rigid that it fails to take account of their differing economic situations. Thirdly, we shall want to form a view on whether the proposals would help or hinder the process of holding down the real level of common support prices or would be neutral.
We cannot apply these criteria until we see the proposals in detail. That is why I recommend that the House simply takes note of this communication from the Commission, which is not itself a proposal for legislation. I need hardly add, although it is not, strictly speaking, relevant to the debate, that it is still the Government's view that common support prices in general are fixed at too high a level in the Community. It will continue to be our policy to maintain a moderating influence on the level at which the prices are fixed in future.
I hope that I have said enough to give the House an indication of the Government's approach to these issues. I shall, of course, be happy to answer particular points which may be raised in the debate.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: First, I must declare my interest as a farmer in these matters. I repeat and endorse what the Under-Secretary of State said in expressing our gratitude to the Scrutiny Committee for dealing with these matters in its customary way and drawing our attention to these two most important proposals.
The Minister has given us an unusually detailed helpful explanation of what is implicit in the proposals. I am grateful to him for giving what we do not hear often enough—namely, an explanation of how some of our colleagues in the Community are lining up for or against the various proposals that come forward. It is helpful to know what problems are being met in negotiations on these issues.
When we consider the documents it is wise to recall the origin of MCAs. It is as well to remember that they arose because within the common agricultural policy we are not able to have a single European currency with which to back the various price structures and support systems. We on the Opposition Benches still regard it as our aim as members of the Community to arrive at a single European currency.

Mr. Richard Body: No.

Mr. Jopling: For a long time it has been——

Mr. Spearing: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that official Opposition policy is entirely backing a common European currency within as short a time as possible?

Mr. Jopling: I did not say that. If the hon. Gentleman will hold himself in control for half a second he will hear what I intend to say in my next sentence. He will recall that we when we joined the Community a timetable was allowed, which has since foundered, to arrive at a common European currency. Although that is still our aim, we realise that its fruition is some years away. However, we must not forget it.
MCAs were originally introduced in the 1960s as a temporary expedient to follow a devaluation of the French currency and a revaluation of the German currency. As Document 1149/77 says, they were originally intended to be temporary and not to become permanent features, costing huge amounts, as they seem to have become in the last few years. They have grown recently to mammoth proportions in trade with the United Kingdom— basically because of the catastrophic fall in sterling. That has given rise to a large green pound discrepancy, because of what the world sees as the Government's economic failure. If the Government had taken the proper steps three years ago to control inflation, our currency would not have fallen so much and we should not have had these massive problems with MCAs.
The considerable increases in food costs because of the slumping pound would have been avoided because it would be worth more. The massive devaluation last year made our food prices shoot up— for example, sheepmeat, tea and coffee. Apart from world shortages, those rises were caused by our devalued currency and had nothing to do with membership of the EEC. The MCAs have been a welcome buffer to those rising prices.

Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend is now advancing into areas of economics. Is not the fall in the value of sterling invariably due to the balance of trade position? Does he not agree that part of


the cause of the fall in sterling is that in 1971, before we joined the EEC, our deficit with the eight other countries was £180 million, whereas in 1976 it was £2,300 million and is still running at that rate?

Mr. Jopling: I do not agree. The fall has been much more due to the Government's failure to control inflation. The MCAs have acted as a welcome buffer to food price increases following devaluation. It is a paradox that those who are most passionately opposed to our membership of the EEC seem to be the most passionate advocates of making the green pound system and the MCAs permanent. We cannot expect high MCAs to continue as a permanent feature of life in the Community. As Document 1125/77 says in the explanatory memorandum:
High MCAs could create distortions of competition.
I think that is the understatement of the debate. The present pig crisis distortion is caused by high MCAs. Because of this distortion we find ourselves in a situation in which the pig breeding herd has slumped by about 10 per cent. in the last six months. If we do not want to see a repetition of the pig crisis and potential crises in other sectors of food production, something will have to be done to avoid the high levels of MCAs.
The high level has caused an increase in heavily subsidised imports and the ruining of our domestic markets. Those who do not understand this should talk to beef farmers and find out about their experiences last winter. This leads to cuts in production at home, as in the pig sector, which leads to a loss of home-produced food, which means high prices for the housewives, and we are all trying to avoid that.
These two documents move towards the end of trying to reduce high levels of MCAs rather than coping with them, as is the present position. Document R1125/77 proposes to lower them by lowering intervention prices on which most are based, or by widening the franchise, which now runs at 1½ per cent. below the intervention price, thus lowering the percentage used to arrive at the MCAs. The Secretary of State's explanatory memorandum left out the second alternative, and I hope that in future

these memoranda will be more comprehensive.
We do not quarrel with that concept, but we wonder which of the two proposals the Government prefer. How much do they anticipate they would be prepared to accept in the reduction of intervention prices, so widening the franchise?
Are the Government satisfied to have these matters controlled—as the document proposes—by management committees. Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that it is wise to take these matters out of the responsibility of Ministers? That seems rather doubtful, and I would be somewhat dubious about seeing these matters in the hands of management committees.
I agree with the motion, which says, while taking note of the document, that there should be more clearly specified proposals before we can come to a final solution. But, in general, Document R/1125/77 is on the right lines, and we approve it.

Mr. Welsh: If the Conservative Party is in favour of a common European monetary policy, does the hon. Gentleman accept the Commission's proposal for use of European units of account?

Mr. Jopling: If the hon. Member will contain himself, I shall come to this in dealing with the next document.
Document R/1149/77 follows with wider issues of existing and future levels of MCAs and the methods of dealing with them. I know that the Government have set their face against the original proposals of Commissioner Lardinois to have automatic reductions. The proposal in this document is a compromise away from that situation. It is first of all intended to freeze the present discrepancies. While accepting the national political and economic problems—which means goodness knows when the existing discrepancies will be reduced—the Government have set their mind against automatic changes, and it would be absolutely catastrophic to food production and industry in this country if the present level of MCAs were abolished too quickly. In terms of milk consumption, I think that the worst thing we could do would be to reduce the present level of MCAs too quickly.
I like the proposal to remove systematically any new MCAs which may


arise due to currency fluctuations in future. It is a good idea to take the view "We have this discrepancy at the moment, but let us be sure that any others that arise in the future will be dealt with". We should not allow the problem to build up, and we would not quarrel with such an approach.
The Minister said that the proposal to remove annually any new discrepancy that arose would remove flexibility. That is true, but when the value of sterling is fluctuating anyway the cost of a great many foodstuffs goes up and down consequent on the changes of sterling without any flexibility, and there is nothing much we can do about it. To include in that sector of food supplies ones which are affected by MCAs is not, as the Minister seemed to imply, a fundamental step.
We do not quarrel with the proposals in Document R/1149/77. A good deal in those proposals is vague. Some Community countries have criticised the proposals for being piecemeal. I share with the Minister a feeling that many of our colleagues in the Community are unlikely to accept either of these proposals while they think that there is a chance of getting a much more fundamental approach through automatic procedures to deal with MCA levels and green pound discrepancies.
I think that the Government are wrong to dismiss out of hand any automatic adjustment. It may be a good thing for us to examine carefully the possibility of having a system of automatic adjustment, one which, I stress, does not reduce the level of the MCAs too quickly, otherwise this would have the devastating effects I described earlier.
The European unit of account is a most interesting development. I would say to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) that I do not think any of us know enough about it. It is not spelt out in enough detail for us to be able to appreciate the implications, particularly countries such as the United Kingdom which find themselves outside the snake.
In the short term we want to know how these measures could be brought in to help the present crisis in the pig industry. The Government have presided over the present decline in the pig industry, which is a very important sector.

They missed the boat in October in altering the methods of calculating the MCAs for pigmeat. Secondly, they brought in a 50p subsidy which had little effect on declining profits in the industry.

Mr. John Ellis: The Tories supported it.

Mr. Jopling: Since the hon. Gentleman is muttering so much from a sedentary position, perhaps he would like to make an intervention standing up.

Mr. John Ellis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understood that at the time the Conservative Front Bench supported the 50p subsidy. Therefore, it is a little rough for the hon. Gentleman to denounce it now. He had better go and check Hansard.

Mr. Jopling: It is late at night and perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. What I said was that that subsidy had had little effect. While that subsidy was in effect, losses to pig producers continued. It did not put a stop to the losses that they were incurring.
The Commission has produced a scheme for the diminution of the MCAs which is a transitional arrangement, and, again, these would have a minor effect. Because of the high level of MCAs, pig producers are now in a state of total gloom. I know that the Government appreciate this. Matters have not been helped by the Minister saying that a devaluation of the green pound would not help pig producers. That has been vehemently denied by many farmers. It seems, from the speeches I have heard from farming interests, that the Minister has not considered the price differential between the market price and the support price of the cereal content of the food input. The devaluation of the green pound would lift the support price and reduce the differential, while market forces would still dictate the market price. That point has been put graphically and persuasively by farmers, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to this serious difference of opinion between the Minister's statement—particularly at the Bath and West Show—and the response from farmers. We are entitled to know the Government's response to the strictures that have been put on the Minister's conclusions by farmers' leaders.
These documents attempt to deal with the principal reason why British agriculture has declined so steadily during the last two or three years. The industry has had to put up with lower productivity and lower farm incomes. Food producers have the right to feel that they are moving into a position where they will be competing with European farmers on a fair basis. Apart from anything else, that is in the best interests of the consumers at a time when plentiful long-term supplies of food are in serious doubt around the world. I hope that these proposals will mark a start, before too long, in moving in this direction. Such proposals are, in the long run, in the interests of the whole nation.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis (Brigg and Scunthrope): I have listened to such debates for a considerable time on other occasions. I shall be critical of the Minister, but, because Hansard is read outside the House, we ought to spell out the matter as simply as possible. The reason why I start with the Minister is that a study of the Which? document on the common agricultural policy is instructive, and it is possible for us in the House to do better. The same applies to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling).
Having listened to the speeches that have been made, it seems that, while there is some criticism, the main point is always missed. We should not be in this position had we not joined the Common Market and got into the CAP. I am sorry if hon. Members think that I am being over-simplistic, but if one talks to farmers throughout the country one realises that there has been a boom in agriculture since the war because of deficiency payments —the name of Tom Williams is always mentioned—which put agriculture back on its feet. One can theorise about the Common Market in many ways, but the CAP has been a disaster for farming, and there is no gainsaying that.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Prove it.

Mr. John Ellis: We had a deficiency payments scheme that put agriculture in such a position that were able to work out our own policies in this country whether for hill farming, marginal land or good land. We had the agricultural reviews. We could do all these things.

If the Opposition cannot see this, they are missing the main point. This always happens in these debates. Hon. Members always miss the main point. If we get the principle wrong, it does not matter how much we mess about with it, because we shall not be able to put it right.
This document is dependent on what happens in negotiations. We do not know details of the amounts involved or the timing, and the pig industry is still in serious difficulties. If the hon. Member for Westmorland had wanted to launch a serious criticism of the Minister, he should have stressed the fundamental point that we must get the principles right.
We do not know when the measures that we arc debating will come into operation. It will certainly not be tomorrow or next month. Hon. Members have always said that we need to make long-term plans for agriculture. What are our pig farmers supposed to do? They are faced with changes, but they do not know the amounts involved or the timing. What plans can they make for the future?
In France there are more people on the land and they have greater political pull than their counterparts in this this country. But we have the most efficient agricultural industry in the EEC. In any system, these diametrically opposed facts will be reflected in the policies of individual Governments. In agriculture, as much as in any other subject, policies will be divergent because member States do not have the same interests at heart. We shall not be able to look after our own best interests as we have done in the past.
I appreciate the impatience of hon. Members opposite when my hon. Friends and I talk about fundamental principles, as we always do in these debates. They say it is the same old song, but sometimes the old songs are the best, and we insist that if the principles are wrong the dilemmas will remain.
As always, I wish the Minister well in the negotiations. He will be trying to get an agreement that is in the best interests of this country even though he is not master in his own home. He was most successful when he took arbitrary action and made what the hon. Member for Westmorland sneeringly referred to as


illegal payments. The Opposition welcomed those payments when they were made, and I support my right hon. Friend in any measures designed to protect the interests of our pig farmers or any other sectior of our agriculture. Support for such measures would not necessarily come only from this side of the House.
It is a gloomy picture which faces pig farmers; it was gloomy before the debate and will be after it. It is not the fault of hon. Gentlemen on either side who have criticised the principles of this, because it is inevitable under the system.
The Member for Westmorland and his hon. Friend, who has been smiling throughout, may think they are informed in these matters, but if the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) can hold his hand on his heart and swear to the House that he can get these EEC documents from the library and understand every jot and nuance, he is remarkable. He would be hard-pressed to say that.
In one matter hon. Gentlemen opposite have to agree with me, that this regulation does not immediately make the way plain for the pig farmers of this country. Even if the hon. Member for Westmorland were the greatest exponent of these regulations and welcomed them, he would have to agree with me that the fundamental principle that the pig farmers have a right to expect from this House is that we should be able to take measures and let them know what the measures are and what the results of them are.
Those who support the Common Market are in no way in a position tonight to tell the pig farmers that next month, or the month after, or the month after that, they will have all the basic knowledge they need, as people living in a Community, to tell them what their future will be.
That is the tragedy of the Common Market, and will continue to be so, while we slavishly follow the dictates of the people who have no responsibility but seem more tied to the bureaucratic farce which these documents always represent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that less than 45 minutes remains, including time for the Minister to wind up if thought necessary.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: Deficiency payments are permissible and exist for two commodities. They are only a means of subsidising and supporting farmers if the Community is in the position of importing food. As, however, the Community is not only self-sufficient but often in surplus in most commodities, deficiency payments are not available as a useful mechanism for supporting the incomes of farmers.
Although it might be permissible of practical, if we had our own agricultural policy, to go back to deficiency payments, that would be unworkable and unhelpful for farmers while we are locked inside the common agricultural policy. A policy of deficiency payments would be of no use to our farmers inside the common agricultural policy.
I agree that the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) was pretty well right about the pig industry. I got out of pigs just after the referendum because I knew that the price of feeding stuffs would rocket if we stayed inside the CAP. None of my hon. Friends, however euphoric about the EEC, could deny that if we were outside the Community feeding stuffs would be considerably cheaper than they are now. I have argued this on many occasions, and nobody can fault my conclusion that feeding stuffs would be £25 a ton less outside than they are now inside.

Mr. Peter Mills: Rubbish.

Mr. Body: My hon. Friend says "Rubbish", but when he kept pigs last year he was paying £26 a ton less.

Mr. Mills: Is my hon. Friend saying that the world price of the cereals which make up feeding stuffs is £25 a ton less than the average price in the Community?

Mr. Body: More, considerably more. I am not talking about soya and fish meal. We know that they have gone up. I am sure my hon. Friend knows that the world price is now down to £57 a ton. He shakes his head. If he looks it up in the Financial Times on almost any day, he will see that I am absolutely right. Indeed, the United States Department of Agriculture in its recent report has expressed alarm about how to market its wheat. Countries such as India,


for example, do not know where to store surplus wheat and are asking other countries to accept it. There is no problem about obtaining supplies on the world market.
I do not want to go into this matter in detail, because Mr. Deputy Speaker has indicated that time is short. But the fact is that feeding stuffs would be markedly cheaper—I say by £25 a ton, but it could be a little less—if we were able to buy cereals on the world market. Of course, we are no longer able to do that, despite the mounting surpluses which are apparent to anyone who reads the reports of the FAO and other bodies.
I want to return to the fears which have been expressed about this draft regulation. I listened carefully when the Parliamentary Secretary listed the criteria. I go along with him to some extent, but he was being a little complacent about how MCAs are now working and seriously distorting trade. That is happening in three ways. I emphasise that if the regulation goes through as it now is these three elements will be made worse, to the disadvantage of importers and exporters in this country and, therefore, at the end of the day, of British agriculture.
First, MCAs introduce a speculative and arbitrary element into trade. If the Parliamentary Secretary doubts that, I suggest that he ask his officials to obtain for him a copy of the International Currency Review dated, it is true, January-February 1974, but every word is valid today. The article in question is entitled:
Monetary Compensatory Amounts: How MCAs create disorderly marketing conditions.
It sets out in a responsible and restrained way allegations about how the MCA system is distorting trade. It reaches a crescendo towards the end when it describes the speculation, bribes, frauds and fortunes which can be made by people who understand the MCA system and are willing to speculate. That is serious for us as farmers.
I used to export when I was in farming, because I was in a large enough way of business to do so. I could not start dabbling in the business now. Only large firms can afford to take the risks which are inherent in the present MCA system because of its speculative and arbitrary nature.
This wretched MCA system was institutionalised in the 1970s. I am not talking about the early days when it applied on a small scale and France and Germany were affected. Since we joined the Common Market, the MCA system has become an important element in intra-and, to some extent, extra-Community trade. There is no doubt that the smaller firms have had very worrying times in calculating the figures. We have been told throughout the years by the Comission that we cannot have MCAs permanently fixed; they must be calculated, as they are now, on a weekly basis. This results in three serious distortions of intra-Community trade.
Having studied these documents as best I could, I am convinced that this proposal will make things much worse. I repeat that a speculative element is introduced. I am appalled to hear of the astonishing certificate called the "advance fixing certificate". If one is a speculator, one can get a fix. It is a little bit of jargon picked up from the drugs business. If one lodges sufficient security with the Intervention Board in Reading, one can obtain one of those certificates even though one does not intend to trade. If one is a speculator and thinks that the currency will go up or down, one can sell the certificate. I am told that there is quite a market in the certificates.
One can, if one is canny, make a calculation and have a gamble. If we arc to have this draft regulation, with all the uncertainty, with no clear criteria, with so much power handed over to the Commission, surely we shall add to the speculative element. I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary and other Socialists would be on the rampage against making it possible for more speculators to come into this kind of dabbling, legitimate though it may be, within the law, but an undesirable practice which no hon. Member on either side of the House would tolerate.
The other distortion—this is something that the Parliamentary Secretary may not appreciate—is that the system is so complex that the smaller firms are no longer trading. When we listen to representations about these matters, we are liable to hear views from the trade associations, the views of the larger firms. There are large firms engaged in the importing and exporting of food that positively like this


MCA system. The more complicated it becomes, the more they like it, because they know that only a very few, an elite few, really understand it. This is acting as a non-tariff barrier. It is having the effect of making it impossible for the smaller firms to take part in the amount of exporting and importing that used to be the speciality of so many small firms.
The other objection to the MCAs— and this will be exacerbated by the new proposal—is that the MCA can never be quite accurate, except by a fluke. It can never truly be the correct position. It is either too much or too little.
I hope I have persuaded the Parliamentary Secretary that we must examine the proposal very carefully and make sure that the interests of smaller firms and firms which have exported food over the years to Third world countries are safeguarded. This applies also to certain firms, particularly in Holland, dealing with countries which believe in a rigid system of price control. There are many countries with a system of price control that is absolute. Important food items have a fixed retail price and nobody can sell them for more. Therefore, retailers and importers in those countries must know exactly what price they will pay.
At present, when a consignor in the Community tries to export food items, he adds into the contract that the price is subject to the MCAs at that time. Importers in this country cannot accept that condition, with the result that if the consignor is to have the export he must accept responsibility. Exporters are not willing to take that risk when MCAs are bobbing about. They might make money, but they might lose it.
These regulations will increase the uncertainty. The Commission should appreciate the difficulties of the smaller exporters, particularly when they have the problems of exporting to Third world countries where there is a rigid system of price control over food. I am convinced that the Commission will not listen to representations unless they are made as forcibly as possible. I hope and pray that the Minister will make them forcibly.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The speech by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) is significant for two reasons. The first is that he

has told the House something of the practicalities of the matter in respect of the first document, R/1125/77. The second reason is that he has injected into the debate not merely something which is practical but something which is real.
One of the failings of politicians—of our own profession—is that we adopt grand designs and arguments but we forget the side effects which are caused by the actuality. The hon. Member has shown us some of the difficulties arising from the system. At the moment I support the MCA system, but the hon. Member has shown that it will be more difficult if the principles behind the document are adopted. It is important for the House to take that on board. I am not saying that the MCA system is perfect, but it is better than a common market and totally common prices, as I shall show in a moment. I am glad that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston agrees with me.
There could hardly be a greater distinction than that between the hon. Member's speech and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). For 36 hours this week the House has been obsessed with prices and price control. We debated the Price Commission Bill. It is strange that the hon. Member for Westmorland could come to the Box and say that he approves document R/149/77, which by my calculation would double the levy on wheat imported into this country if it were adopted.
What the hon. Member says shows that the official Opposition are biased heavily towards the food producer, not only among their ranks physically but in their attitude. That is not surprising, but I warn the hon. Member that if the sort of attitude he displayed tonight is continued, his party will suffer a disadvantage. Perhaps I should not warn the hon. Member, because I want his party to suffer that disadvantage. His boldness is surprising, but I must commend his frankness.
The subject is even more important than the 36-hour debate that we had amid great publicity. The difference is that this is not our own legislation. When we voted in Committee on the Price Commission Bill, the Opposition hoped that by chance, design or good luck they would change the Bill. But tonight's


debate will not change anything. It is not within the power of the House to change it.
I do not suggest that our Bills are models of clarity, but at least most of us can understand them and the amendments to them. I must say—and here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis)—that I was a little disappointed with my hon. Friend's introduction. It might have been good in detail but it was thin in principle for the man in the street.
When Ministers come to the Box—this should be noted also by those who advise them—they should start by spelling out, in as simple terms as they can, the likely effects of regulations which are proposed, so that any reasonable mythical man in the street can, at least with care, understand what they are about. My understanding is that only about 1 per cent. of the population, if that, has ever heard of monetary compensatory amounts.
That illustrates the difficulty that we have in the Market. The complications of keeping up with the regulations, even in small professional firms, become impossible. When that situation arises, the con man and the fraud are in. That is a typical characteristic of this organisation. On almost any aspect at which one looks, it becomes virtually impossible for anyone to keep up with the mathematics, the regulations or the amendments. Only a very few people are absolutely in the know.
In that respect even the House, including, I must confess, myself, is left far behind in trying to understand these things. That is not democratic. It is wrong. It is essentially undemocratic by its nature. That is one of the many reasons why some of us do not like the organisation from which these regulations originate.
On document R/1125/77, the explanatory memorandum states:
The proposal would permit the Commission, acting under Management Committee procedure"—
I wonder who will be on the management committee and under what criteria it will operate; it is not even Ministers now—
to reduce MCAs in certain circumstances where to do so would not distort trade".
That is the criterion.
Distortion of trade is a hot subject in the Community. What is a distortion of trade and what is not, and how do we judge? In the last week it appears that even the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources" was judged by Commissioner Gundelach to be threatening the distortion of trade. He wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has put copies of the letters in the Library, saying,
Public speeches by Ministers encouraging agricultural self-sufficiency may not in themselves fall within the scope of the directive mentioned above.
That is the Commission directive of 22nd December 1969.
But in so far as they are indicative of a consistent line of policy which the Government of a Member State intends to adopt, such recommendations must be a matter of concern for the Commission.
In other words, even the adoption of the policy on "Food from Our Own Resources" threatens a "distortion of trade". Indeed, we are told that our Milk Marketing Board does that too.
Therefore, the definition of the term "distortion of trade", the criterion which is to be operated by the management committee, is very wide in scope, very indefinite and inflexible. As has been said, it is almost impossible to say which way the cat would jump in those circumstances.
I turn to the second document, R/1149/77. Frankly, I was surprised to hear the official Opposition support it almost without qualification. The document is very explicit in what it is saying. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has not said something about this in the motion. I know that it is only a communication and that therefore, as he said, the matter will come back here again. But the implications of this for prices in this country are very great indeed. Perhaps that does not disturb food producers, who are rather in a minority among the people of the community, but it is of major importance to food consumers.
The explanatory memorandum states:
In their communication the Commission state that they are considering the following ideas:—
(a) the introduction of a system under which existing MCAs would, through adjustments to representative rates, be phased out by a set date.


I know it is said that this is to take account of political and economic difficulties, but at least they would be phased out. Secondly, it says that any MCAs introduced in the course of a year would
normally be eliminated at each annual price fixing through adjustment of representative rates.
In other words, for most practical purposes the MCAs would disappear. Those are the MCAs that we are constantly hearing about which help the British consumer. I think that they do—but they help German and French producers as well.
In Hansard for 21st June, in Part II at columns 461–62, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has shown the existing common levies together with the existing ACAs and MCAs as at 13th June. The House might like to know that the common levy on wheat is now £78 a ton, on butter £1,483 a ton, and on boneless frozen beef £1,542 a ton. Those levies are not actually made, because at the moment they are offset by MCAs. The ACAs—accession compensatory amounts will go in addition, leaving relatively small amounts imported, with the exception of wheat, because they are designed to keep the food out and to put up the internal price.
If the MCAs are phased out over a period, instead of paying about £40 a ton levy on Canadian wheat, as we do at the moment, for our bread, which is nearly the world price anyway, we should have to pay £78 a ton. Wheat is a good example because it is emotive, and the Corn Laws are in our minds on this sort of issue. We import about 1½ million tons of wheat from outside the Community each year, for which we are having to pay about £60 million.

Mr. Shepherd: Is this a filibuster?

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman may not know these figures. If he does, he ought to tell them to his constituents, because at this moment there is a lot of argument about food prices in this country and people are not being told the truth. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell them. I also hope that he will go to his usual channels and tell them that we want—more than one and a half hours for debates such as this. If we can take 36 hours in discussing

a Bill about prices—something which is in the control of this House—we ought to have more than one and a half hours for matters which are not in the control of the House and which are vastly more important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views, but he might have consideration for other hon. Members who desire to speak. It is entirely in his own hands.

Mr. Spearing: I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we have had many of these debates. The points I am making are matters of information which I do not believe are commonly known to Members of this House, let alone to people outside.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who opened the debate, has given us a great deal of the detail, and I intend to finish before 11.30 p.m. If the ACAs and MCAs were phased out, the levy would not be £40 but would be about £80 for each ton of Canadian wheat imported into this country. As we import 1½ million tons, that would be about £120 million a year. We import 2¼ million tons of grain from the EEC. The cost of that grain is within the common external tariff and, therefore, it is higher than it otherwise would be if we could import Canadian or Australian grain levy-free.
My calculations show that if the MCAs were phased out we should be having to pay about £280 million more over world prices. Therefore, I say to those who support this second document that they should be careful what they are supporting, because if it means that the proportion of tax on imported Canadian wheat is two or three times that of the Corn Laws, the issue is certainly two or three times greater than that of the Corn Laws. But we all know that the issue at stake here is far, far greater than that.
The hon. Member for Westmorland in leading for the Opposition, declared his interest, quite properly. I declare mine—that of protecting the prices of food for the British consumer.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I must declare an interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a member of the Scrutiny Committee, I am a farmer and I am a consumer.


Therefore, I have a right to say a few words.
I should like first to reply to the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). I really feel that if he had to look into the whole position of agriculture in the past and what is happening now, he would not make the sort of remarks that he has made concerning deficiency payments. I recall the time when the Treasury was very upset at the enormous sums of money—taxpayers' money, the hon. Gentleman's money— which was being paid out. There was also the business of the control of production through deficiency payments. Perhaps the hon. Member has never heard of standard quantities, which was the biggest method of controlling the food production of this country. Of course it was an entirely different time and system to what it is now. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at this more carefully rather than making such wild statements.
There is no doubt at all that MCAs are absolutely crucial, given the position that we are in. If we are to get food production moving again for the benefit of the consumer, British agriculture and the farm workers we must solve the problem of the MCAs. The system of monetary compensatory amounts was designed to offset the benefits and the differences and so prevent distortions in trade. The sad thing is that it has done the exact opposite. It has caused even more distortions and even more problems.
Why is that so? It is not the fault of the Community which all these weary Willies keep on about. It is entirely the fault of the Government of the day. There is no question that if the pound had retained its value of $2·3, as it was when we were in power—now it is down to $1·7—all these problems, although there, would be nothing like they are now.
It is dishonest of Labour Members to be saying that these high food prices have been caused by the Community. The Community represents only about 3 per cent. The real nigger in the woodpile are the Government, who have allowed the pound to deteriorate so much that all the problems of the MCAs have made the cost of food rise so dramatically.
The Government talk about being experts, but if they looked into this matter with an honest appraisal they would see how wrong they are. It is interesting to think what would happen if this Socialist Government had retained the pound at that value. What a difference it would have made. It would have made an enormous difference to agriculture, to the consumer and to this country as a whole. The consumers and agriculturists are suffering because of the effects of a Socialist Government who have allowed the pound to deteriorate so much. There is no doubt at all about that.
The future of MCAs is crucial to food production in this country. If the Government wish to destroy the pig industry —that is what they are doing—in the long run it is the consumer who will suffer. I believe that the price of pigmeat will rise dramatically in the autumn because so many pig farmers have gone out of production, not because of the cost of feed but because they cannot stand the unfair competition from the Danes and the rest of the Community. It is no good blaming it on the Community. It is simply because of the drop in the value of the pound and the rise in the compensatory amounts.
I shall finish because the Minister wishes to reply. But if we are to have a pig industry in the future we must do something about MCAs. They have to be reduced. I leave it at that.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Strang: I shall try as best I can to reply to the main points raised in the debate. I shall take them in the order in which they were raised.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) criticised the explanatory memorandum. I must rebut that criticism on the ground that when he referred to the suggestion in the document that the adjustment could be made by reducing the percentage used in calculating monetary compensatory amounts he did not fully appreciate that that was mentioned in the document only in order to dismiss it. It is not a legislative proposal. It was preferable not to mention it in the explanatory memorandum, which aims to be as simple as possible and to provide guidance to the Scrutiny Committee.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point that these matters should be controlled by the Council rather than the management committee—this point was echoed by a number of hon. Gentlemen— I would make it clear that the Government substantially agree with that. We are anxious to limit further the powers which this proposed regulation would give the Commission. In other words, we think that the powers of the Commission are too sweeping, and we want to see them defined more clearly.
I do not want to get drawn again into the argument about the effect on pig producers of devaluing the green pound, but we must recognise that, if we devalue the green pound, it means a reduction in the MCA. The MCA abates the common levy. That means that the price of cereals will rise. Therefore, a reduction in the MCA, which abates the common levy, would lead to an increase in the levy. There is no doubt that a devaluation of the green pound would have some implications for the price of cereals and feed whereas altering the method of calculating the MCA now gets over that point and enables us to reduce the MCA on pigmeat without affecting the price of cereals.
I come next to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Sounthorpe (Mr. Ellis). I know that he supports the Government in that he has called on a number of occasions for a recalculation of the MCA. I agree with him that membership of the Community has exacerbated our pig cycle. We always had a pig cycle, of course, when pig producers moved from a situation of high profitability into one of very low profitability. Membership of the Community has had an effect on that cycle, and the high import subsidy on imported pigmeat has made the position worse in the United Kingdom market.
It will also be said that membership of the Community limits severely the scope for our Government to take corrective action, as has been seen with the pig subsidy. But I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe picked up the hon. Member who referred to this as an illegal payment. I remind the House that the question whether it is an illegal payment has not yet been decided. That is not what the case in the European Court was about.

We shall have to wait and see what the decision of the European Court is on that when the case reaches the court.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) both complained that I did not explain the issue in simple terms similar to those in the Which? report. We had a substantial debate for a whole day on the fundamental issue of MCAs. When we have only an hour and a half, it would be a mistake for a Minister to spend time explaining in simple terms what MCAs are. If he did that, he could not do justice to the nature of complicated proposals of this kind, especially when a number of hon. Members understand fully and take a considerable amount of time to read up on the subject in order to make informed contributions to the debate.
Having said that, I come to what I regard as the very valuable contribution of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). I should not like to give the impression of complacency about the effect of MCAs on trade. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that speculation is a real problem. However, I am sure that he will agree that, the bigger the MCA, the bigger the problem. If the MCAs are relatively small, the scope for profitable speculation is much reduced.
There is another point which should be made, although I do not make too much of it, because there are aspects of the common agricultural policy which provide additional scope for speculation. But I wonder whether we are not seeing more speculation right across the board. Today, I heard on the radio a report which said that there are now more investments in commodities than in equity shares. It may be that, with multinational companies and the development of international capitalism, greater communications and more trade, investors or speculators, whichever word is preferred, are more active in such commodities as tea, coffee and cocoa. It happens that those commodities have nothing to do with the CAP in this sense. I am not sure whether that factor is operating in the background.
I can understand the comment that these matters are complex. It is the first time that their complexity and the position


of small firms have been put to me directly.
It is true that the importer will want to know precisely what price he will have to pay when engaged in external trade. The Commission is seized of that fact. That is why it is proposing to introduce the prefixing of MCAs for external credit. It argues that it will not introduce it for internal trade as that would increase the scope for speculation. It is seeking to introduce prefixing of MCAs on trade with third countries.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South that the phrase "distortion of trade" is used rather loosely, especially in Commission documents. What is a distortion of trade? We agree that there is a distortion of trade in pigmeat. We want a reduction in the MCA to force up the price of pigmeat in this country. We are talking about relatively small adjustments in MCAs, but we must bear in mind that we cannot be certain in which direction we shall be wanting to move within the adjustments that are made in future.
I think that the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) makes the great mistake of thinking that the green pound and the size of the United Kingdom MCA dominate the whole question of the monetary compensatory amounts. There is just as much concern shown by the Danes and the Dutch about the level of protection that the MCAs give to German farmers. There are just as many worries in Italy about the excessive imports of livestock products. There is the question of French and Irish assistance and the level of MCAs imposed on their exports.
References to MCAs are made repeatedly in the Council. They are just as controversial in other countries in the Community as in Britain. We should not be on the defensive. We should not think that the United Kingdom is the great odd man out. Other member States pursue a similar policy to that pursued by Britain. If they think that a change in their representative rate is in their interests, they will press for it. If they do not think that it is in their interests, they will oppose it. That was brought out clearly in the last price-fixing.
I have tried to cover as well as I can the main points that have been raised. I

remind my hon. friend the Member for Newham, South—I do not need to remind him as he is already aware of what I am about to say, but I tell him none the less —that the original proposals for perhaps automatic adjustment of MCAs and the application of the European unit of account, which I would favour for agriculture, will be important events. No doubt they will be modified in the course of discussion in the Council. It will be important to study the proposals carefully. The proposals and the draft regulations will be more important than the matters we are now discussing.
It has been a short debate but I think that it has been useful. It has brought out some of the important matters that must be borne in mind by the United Kingdom representatives in the Community.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of Commission documents R/1125/77 and R/1149/77 and, while welcoming the opportunity which the proposal in R/1125/77 would offer for reducing monetary compensatory amounts for pigmeat, considers that the scope and criteria for its application in other sectors ought to be more clearly specified.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITY WORKS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland),

That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WATERWAYS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I wish to raise the matter of capital provision for waterways. My criticism of the Government is not of our present Government alone but of successive Governments. I hope that the Minister will understand my use of the phrase "Whitehall thinking". My criticism is


that Whitehall thinking, knowledge, understanding and vision of waterways has been sadly deficient. I hope that in this Government's attitude to integrated transport that attitude will change.
I think of Whitehall thinking in its entirety but Ministers are responsible. Although the Minister may be personally new to this matter, I hope that he will press upon his right hon. Friends that the reputations of past Ministers have not been high in this matter. I hope that that will change in time.
Our thinking on this subject has sometimes been wrong. Whitehall often thinks of waterways in terms of the British Waterways Board alone. That is wrong. Our estuaries and rivers and extensions to them are just as much waterways, albeit extensions of ports, as the waterways run by the BWB. The Manchester Ship Canal is perhaps the biggest and most important waterway in this country. It is said that what Manchester does today the nation does tomorrow. Alas, that was not so in the case of Sheffield, Leeds and Birmingham, but it shows that, surrounding the coast of this country, we have a natural waterway—the sea—and that access to the sea can be made available for craft or some seagoing vessels by relatively small improvements to the important estuaries and rivers which drain to our coast.
Perhaps we have been too well provided with the waterway around our coast to realise that. On the Continent of Europe conditions are different, but because they are not so well placed with the immediate sea coast they think differently. I do not want my Government to be forced by the EEC to harmonise capital provision for waterways as they may be for roads.
I hope that the Government will adopt some of the systems already in existence on the Continent, especially in Germany, because of their merits. The German method of investment in waterways is comparable to ours in roads. The capital sum is made available, there may be some calculation of return, but there is no interest cost and there is no test such as I understand our Government make on investment in new waterways, which is comparable to the 10 per cent, test for industry. That is the big difference. I do not wish that change to come by being

forced on the Government; I hope that they will adopt it of their own volition.
There is a long history of discussion of this matter in the House. On 3rd March 1972 I initiated a debate on the matter, when I quoted a reply from the Minister, written on 16th February 1972, to the effect that matters of waterways were under continual study. That was in reply to a claim that studies had shown that developments of waterways would not be economic. It is shown throughout the history of this matter. This has been the sort of reply that we have had all along. The Environment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Public Expenditure 1974 noted that expenditure on canals was not eligible for the transport supplementary grant and recommended that the exclusion should be reconsidered.
Alas, the Government response to this recommendation was that since there was plenty of subsidy given to the British Waterways Board they did not consider that inclusion of this expenditure in the TSG system would serve any useful purpose. The Government were responding to the belief that the Board was concerned solely with waterways, and in doing so they showed ignorance of the situation as it exists.
But it is not just a matter of the TSG. Section 8 of the last Transport Act gives grants for new railway sidings and extensions of railways. Why not give them for extensions of waterways? The principle is the same. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind.
In the debate on the Select Committee report in May 1975 there was no proper reply from the Minister. Unfortunately, we have to accept that sort of thing frequently. On 7th May I received the same sort of unsatisfactory answer when I asked what was the difference between the railways and waterways, and why they were dealt with differently. The then Minister replied:
Canal users do not pay equivalent taxes, but they can and do contribute directly, in tolls, to the cost of the facilities they use."—[Official Report, 7th May 1975; Vol. 891, c. 454.]
The Government are falling back on the idea that the waterways are like the old toll roads, and should be financed as such. For a Government in 1977, looking forward to an integrated transport system,


that is an attitude that is backward-looking to an extraordinary degree.
The present Government criteria are spelled out in two Orange Papers published earlier this year. Paragraph 11.18, one of the few sections on waterways says:
The Government are at present considering the British Waterways Board's proposal to improve the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Naviation at a cost of about £5 million.
The most important thing about the transport consultative paper is the appendix in Volume 2, which sets out in detail the assessment of the return on capital of the infrastructure. The calculations are made for the cost-benefit analysis in roads. Roads are dealt with separately—there is a once-for-all grant. The cost-benefit analysis, through the COBA system, was used. The most extraordinary words are used on Page 99:
Time savings are valued at the cost to the employer of employing the traveller.
In other words, if someone goes to work quicker in a car, it will calculate the cost of his time. That is extraordinary. If one applied that sort of cost-benefit analysis to the waterways there would be no time-saving, but there might be a saving of the environment and many other benefits that are not calculable by the same criteria applied to the roads.
Unfortunately the Government do not apply cost-benefit of any sort to the waterways, so it cannot be used anyway. If there were such a procedure it would need to be adjusted to take account of the value of the waterways as such.
Following the imaginative document produced by the Inland Waterways Association, called "Barges or Juggernauts" the then Transport Minister published a Press notice which said:
In particular places and for particular kinds of traffic waterways are the right transport mode, and I hope that wherever these conditions exist they will be identified and pursued".
The then Minister for Transport said in a letter to the then Secretary of the Inland Waterways Association:
I entirely agree that some waterways may be able to play a significant local role and the possibilities should be thoroughly investigated.
He concluded by saying:
I look forward to seeing the results of these studies. And you will be pleased to know that the Department itself is proposing

to commission some general research into the prospects of greater use of waterways for transport purposes.
Hurrah! At last something is to happen.
The Inland Waterways Association put forward some proposals to the Minister, and I believe that the Board suggested a particular research remit and said that certain transport authorities in the Netherlands would be able to help. But, alas, nothing came of it.
I had tabled a Question on this matter for answer yesterday. In response to it, the Minister has written to me as follows:
The proposal put forward by the British Waterways Board in December 1974 was for associating the United Kingdom with research being undertaken in the Netherlands and my officials told the Board that the work in question seemed inappropriate to the circumstances of water traffic in this country.
My first comment is to ask why an official took this decision, although the Minister, through letter and Press statement, had said that studies were to continue. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say what studies were continued and why the discontinuance or refusal of this effort—an imaginative one —was refused by officials and apparently not by Ministers.
The second point about this strange incident was that it was left to the judgment of officials, and apparently they decided that the work was inappropriate. I understand that some of the work was an assessment of traffic likely to be available on waterways. I would have thought that the Dutch were pretty good at that work. I would not have thought that the mathematical technique of network analysis was inappropriate to a fairly wide section across the international frontiers. Although the Dutch experience may be different, I do not think that the formula used would have been inappropriate to certain parts of this country. I put it to the Minister that, the Government having said that they would do something, officials—not the Minister—took it into their hands to refuse the offer without any reference to ministerial level—something which, I suggest, should not be tolerated.
I have tried to make the case that Government or Whitehall thinking has not taken proper cognisance of the possibilities of improving the waterways—not necessarily in linear miles but in particular areas. The Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation project has not


been agreed to because, although the cost would be relatively small, the interest on the depreciation would be added to total cost. That is an inappropriate form for this matter, although even that navigation showed a pretty reasonable return.
We are expecting a re-examination of transport in the Government's White Paper, though I doubt whether it includes a waterways section. It is high time that the Department of the Environment reassessed its attitude to waterways. Waterways are a track not to be compared with others. They are a track-plus—because they cater not just for commercial navigation but for recreational and sporting activities, including sailing, canoeing, and fishing. Waterways can also give a raw water supply for industry and others requiring it. they can fulfil drainage functions, they have flood control functions, and possibly pumped storage functions, too.
Conventional methods are inappropriate. It is still less appropriate to try to calculate commercial return on the same basis as that of the nationalised industries, because the whole situation is different. I look forward to the Minister's saying that the matter of capital for waterways is covered by the White Paper on transport—I suspect that it is not— and that his Department will undertake a deep and searching examination of these matters. If it will not, I suspect that a Select Committee of the House will have some severe remarks to make. I understand that it is already engaged on a study of this matter. I hope that the Minister will ensure that his Department does better in future.
I hope that my remarks have not been too personal, but I also hope that Whitehall thinking will now take a turn and I look to the Minister to see that it does.

12.1 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on obtaining this debate. I know that he has a long-standing interest in British waterways and a detailed knowledge of the subject. There are some hon. Members who think that my hon. Friend's only interest is his anti-Common Market stance, but I, as an Environment Minister, know better.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for advance information on some of the points that he raised and I shall try to be as helpful as possible in answering them. He reminded me that British waterways are not the concern merely of the British Waterways Board. As a Manchester Member I am well aware of that. As a child I always thought that the seven wonders of the world were the Halle Orchestra, the Manchester Ship Canal, the Manchester Guardian—as it was then —Manchester Waterworks, Manchester United, Manchester City and Manchester's education. I recently inspected the full length of the Avon Navigation, which is also not part of the British Waterways Board's responsibility. There has been a splendid improvement of a canal that had been neglected.
My hon. Friend mentioned a number of points in connection with the White Paper on transport but as this is to be published on Monday I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to anticipate the contents. I seem to have spent a great deal of time replying to debates recently saying that the White Paper on transport will be published next week and that the White Paper on the water industry will be coming out shortly, so my style of reply is rather cramped, because I must not anticipate what is in those White Papers.
First, I shall try to put my hon. Friend's particular points in context.
The Transport Act 1962 provides powers for the Board to borrow money for capital purposes, and on a temporary basis for other purposes. The Transport Act 1968 limits the total borrowings which may be outstanding at any time, and also provides for the Secretary of State to make grants from time to time to the Board.
As a statutory body dependent on public financial support, the Board's requirements for investment on capital account are considered and settled by the Department in consultation with the Treasury—normally as an annual exercise—within the framework of the Government's policies for public sector spending. The present position is set out in the Government's published public expenditure plans, which show the actual


capital investment by the Board sanctioned since 1971 and the agreed projections up to 1981. The provision for the current year is £2 million, and similar provision, at 1976 survey prices, is proposed for each of the next three years.
In January each year the Board submits to the Secretary of State a five-year investment review in the context of the annual survey of public expenditure, listing any proposals for expenditure on the Board's fixed assets—land, buildings, waterways, docks, craft, plant, and so on —which is prima facie eligible for advances from the National Loans Fund.
The programme as a whole is discussed with the Department and on completion the Board is given a provisional investment ceiling for two years ahead and confirmation of ceilings previously set for the current year and the following year.
The Board's report for 1976, which was laid in the House on 15th June, shows that total expenditure last year under its investment programme was £1·725 million. Actual total borrowing has now reached £11·9 million, against a current limit of £12 million. The Transport (Financial Provisions) Bill, to which the House gave a Third Reading on 14th June, provides for the raising of this limit to £20 million. Any proposals of a revenue-carrying nature would, if sanctioned, have to be financed from this provision and to comply with the procedure outlined.
In the case of projects costing over £250,000 the Department would make its own detailed appraisal, as was done for the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation scheme. In fact, that is the only project costing over £100,000 that has been submitted by the Board in recent years.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Select Committee's report, in which it drew attention to the Board's view that major new investment is needed and recommended that outstanding matters should be brought to the attention of Ministers. Perhaps I should remind my hon. Friend that the Select Committee said:
In particular we would draw attention to the view expressed by the Board that major new investment is needed both in craft and in route improvements and that unless some

positive lead is given or action taken by the Government, the industry will die. We recommend that matters still outstanding between the Board and the Department of the Environment should be brought to Ministerial notice for urgent review".
Of course that was done, and Ministers are well aware of the position.
As I have said, however, the only major investment proposal before us in recent years has been the Sheffield and South Yorkshire scheme. I know that my hon. Friend is a strong supporter of that scheme and I am aware of his concern about the basis on which the Government declined to make finance available for it. I can only repeat the assurance given to him my my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the debate of 25th May last year, when he refuted the allegation that we applied differing standards of assessment as between waterways and road projects—that although the techniques of assessment must differ the same principle of cost-benefit analysis is applied to both categories.
The techniques differ, because for one thing, in the case of a canal project the expected benefits can be related to market-based direct charges for the service and much of the evaluation can be made in terms of a direct financial return. This is not so with roads, and the return on road investment therefore has to be assessed indirectly through cost-benefit evaluation. The salient point is that there are always more desirable road schemes than the funds available will accommodate at any time and the assessed return on such schemes typically exceed the figure of 15 per cent., which is the minimum acceptable return for a high-risk project.
I have discussed this with the Board and I know that it is unhappy with this criterion, and claims that the Department has underestimated the likely increase in traffic to be expected as a result of the scheme. There is inevitably, in a case such as this, room for disagreement about forecasts—when I dealt with transport matters, I spent some time on the COBA scheme to which my hon. Friend referred—but the Department has gone into the matter very thoroughly and is satisfied that, even on the basis of the most favourable assumptions that we feel it would be prudent to make, a return of as much as 15 per cent, cannot be confidently foreseen for the SSYN project. Some of the traffic forecasts that we were


using then have turned out to be far too high.
For example, we included in our calculations an estimate for 400,000 tons of steel and we think now that a more accurate estimate would have been 30,000 tons.

Mr. Spearing: Does the 15 per cent, return include a cost-benefit analysis of the benefits to people other than British Waterways in terms of cash as well as the reduction in road wear by lorries and other benefits? Unless this is done, there will be a difference in the assessment.

Mr. Marks: With roads and canals we attempt to make an assessment of the environmental advantages of the proposed work. It is difficult to make such assessment and calculate the effect of an improvement in, say, the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation on something else many miles away. However, we do try to make these assessments.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the environmental or side benefits of such a scheme. He may think that they have been accorded insufficient weight; the benefits to towns bypassed by new motor ways or bypasses may be great but they are difficult to assess in pounds and pence.
There is benefit not only in environmental terms but to the general economy and amenities of that area, but in neither case is it possible to quantify these benefits accurately. I suspect that my hon. Friend and I would argue for a long time about the importance or priority which should be given to them. However, they can certainly be taken into account —I believe that "qualitative weighting" is the technical term—in taking decisions on particular schemes, but they are most unlikely ever to be of more than marginal significance.
In the case of road projects, the un-quantifiable items would usually provide a net positive balance, but as I have said, any such projects which are acceptable invariably meet the financial criterion of a percentage return on investment.
The BWB has indicated its wish to seek alternative sources of finance for the SSYN, such as a partnership with local authorities, industry or commerce, or the EEC, if I may use such an expression in my hon. Friend's presence. However, the crux of the matter is the viability of the

scheme itself. If it were possible to find partners who would be prepared to bear a sufficient element of the risk to make the Board's own investment viable by our criteria, of course we would be willing, as we have already indicated, to look at the scheme again. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the different methods of financing canals in other countries, particularly in Western Germany. I am sure that he will recognise the totally different scale of operation there, with waterways like the Rhine or the Scheldt. My hon. Friend mentioned the prospective research in co-operation with Dutch experts, about which he had tabled two Questions for answer on Wednesday 22nd June. Unfortunately, as far as this House is concerned, 22nd June did not exist. I have, however, written to my hon. Friend, as he mentioned, answering his points.
The problem was that the project was geared so much to Continental conditions that, as he would expect, there is a great deal of difference, and I undertake to examine that further. It is difficult to get information on this, but I shall seek information, from both German and Dutch contacts and see what can be done.
I must refer to the Board's general financial position and prospects, so as to present a balanced picture. The Transport Act 1968 placed certain obligations upon the Board, particularly for the maintenance of the existing waterways system. With the passage of time and the continued decline of its commercial operations as well as changes in the financial climate, the extent to which the Board has been able to finance its essential expenditure from revenue has declined, from 74 per cent, in 1970 to less than 50 per cent this year. The grant aid from the Government has correspondingly increased, and now stands at £12 million. Given the increasingly adverse ratio of revenue to expenditure and the small scope for increasing revenue, the Board's capacity for funding borrowing for capital investment is clearly very restricted. Nor is this the whole story.
The House is well aware that, following the Board's submission in 1970 of a programme designed to bring standards of maintenance up to the requirements of the Transport Act 1968, the Government commisioned a comprehensive study by consultants and that this report—the Fraenkel Report—was handed in last


year. It confirms that the Board has indeed been unable to meet the obligations placed on it by that Act and makes recommendations for a very substantial programme of deferred maintenance.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the debate of 25th May 1976, we can see no prospect of obtaining finance of the order of magnitude required for this programme through the normal Treasury channels. This was a prime consideration in proposing, in the Green Paper of March 1976, that the waterways should be brought within the scope of the water industry. We received a wide range of comment on that proposal, and the results of the Government's further consideration of the future of the waterways and the BWB will be set out in the White Paper on the water industry which is due to be published

shortly. It is proposed to release the Fraenkel Report at about the same time.
My hon. Friend referred to the importance of the canals for water supply and their potential contribution as channels for moving water between regions. Already nearly half the Board's total revenue from the waterways comes from those water charges—far more than from tolls and licences, and so on. I know that the regional water authorities are very conscious of the importance of the canals.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fifteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.